[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF OFFSHORE
CARBON STORAGE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, April 28, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-431 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Jim Costa, CA Doug Lamborn, CO
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Robert J. Wittman, VA
CNMI Tom McClintock, CA
Jared Huffman, CA Garret Graves, LA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Joe Neguse, CO Daniel Webster, FL
Mike Levin, CA Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Katie Porter, CA Russ Fulcher, ID
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM Pete Stauber, MN
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Jerry L. Carl, AL
Diana DeGette, CO Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Julia Brownley, CA Blake D. Moore, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Yvette Herrell, NM
A. Donald McEachin, VA Lauren Boebert, CO
Darren Soto, FL Jay Obernolte, CA
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Cliff Bentz, OR
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL Vacancy
Ed Case, HI Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA
David Watkins, Staff Director
Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair
PETE STAUBER, MN, Ranking Member
A. Donald McEachin, VA Yvette Herrell, NM
Mike Levin, CA Doug Lamborn, CO
Katie Porter, CA Garret Graves, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Betty McCollum, MN Vacancy
Jared Huffman, CA Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Debbie Dingell, MI
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, April 28, 2022......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Meckel, Tip, Senior Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic
Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Milito, Erik, President, National Ocean Industries
Association, Washington, DC................................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Muffett, Carroll, President and CEO, Center for International
Environmental Law, Washington, DC.......................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Saunders, Nichole, Director and Senior Attorney, Energy
Transition, Environmental Defense Fund, Austin, Texas...... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Lowenthal
Best Management Practices for Offshore Transportation and
Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide--BOEM
2018-004............................................... 53
Carbon Capture Coalition, Statement for the Record........... 54
Clean Air Task Force, Statement for the Record............... 58
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF OFFSHORE CARBON
STORAGE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
----------
Thursday, April 28, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan S.
Lowenthal [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Porter; Stauber,
Herrell, and Graves.
Dr. Lowenthal. Good morning everyone. The Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources will come to order.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on the opportunities
and the risks of storing carbon dioxide offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today or at the close of
the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
Without objection, we may have other Members, which we will
hear from later on today, to ask questions of witnesses in
today's meeting.
As described in the notice, statements, documents, or
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at
HNRCDocs@mail.house.gov. Members physically present should
provide a hard copy for staff to distribute by e-mail.
Please note that Members are responsible for their own
microphones. As with our fully in-person meetings, Members can
be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
With that, I will begin my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Dr. Lowenthal. It is, for me, a very interesting hearing. I
will start with the Biden administration has set goals for the
United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50
percent by 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions no later than
2050. According to the international scientific community, if
countries worldwide reach net-zero emission by mid-century, we
can prevent the worst impacts of climate change from occurring.
We have no time to waste and reaching these goals will take
a whole-of-government approach. We need to eliminate greenhouse
gas pollution from every sector of the U.S. economy, including
heavy industries that are critical to our economy but are very
difficult to decarbonize. I am talking about heavy industries
like manufacturing, chemical processing, and refining.
One potential tool for these hard-to-decarbonize industries
is carbon capture and storage. But capturing the carbon dioxide
before it enters the atmosphere is just one side of the
equation, and a complicated one at that. That carbon must then
be stored and monitored for decades to come, which brings us to
the subject of today's hearing.
The Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico has
tremendous potential to permanently store large amounts of
carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted into the
atmosphere. State governments, industry, and academics have all
expressed interest, thanks to the Gulf's unique geology and
close proximity to heavy industries that emit significant
amounts of carbon pollution.
The Gulf region is also home to a highly trained offshore
oil and gas workforce whose skills and expertise are directly
transferable to this emerging industry.
And it makes sense. Instead of pumping oil out of the
seabed, they would be pumping carbon dioxide into it.
However, offshore carbon storage is most certainly not
without risk, and it is no silver bullet climate solution.
Carbon capture and storage does not give highly polluting
facilities a license to increase emissions of carbon dioxide or
the many other dangerous pollutants that they can spill into
the air.
The Gulf region is home to over 1,000 industrial facilities
that disproportionately impact minority and low-income
communities. These types of facilities emit enormous amounts of
pollution that are harming our planet and hurting human health.
We must also gain a better understanding of the impacts of
offshore carbon storage on marine environments and the safety
hazards posed by carbon dioxide pipelines, which will be
essential for moving carbon from where it is captured and into
the undersea storage reservoirs.
In 2020, a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline in Mississippi
led to the evacuation of 200 residents and the hospitalization
of 45 people. That is why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
directed the Department of the Interior to issue new safeguards
for development of carbon storage projects on the Outer
Continental Shelf, in addition to other provisions to support
this industry.
It is critical that these regulations developed by the
Department of the Interior prioritize the health and safety of
Gulf communities, set strong industry standards, and provide
protections for taxpayers.
Before I turn it over to Ranking Member Stauber, I want to
emphasize that carbon capture and storage could be one piece,
albeit a small piece, of our overall efforts to reduce
pollution that is destroying our planet and harming the health
of fellow Americans.
However, I would like to say usually when we have Majority
witnesses, they all agree, generally, on the topic, and the
Minority witnesses are usually in opposition. But this hearing,
our Majority witnesses have different takes on this, on carbon
capture and storage.
One esteemed scientist says that carbon capture and storage
in the Gulf is not a want, but a need. It has to be done,
really.
Another one says that carbon storage is not a silver
bullet. And that before we do it, we really must take into
account that lots of issues must be solved.
And our third witness says carbon capture and storage is a
false solution.
So, I look forward to an exciting hearing and one that I
hope will educate me greatly. I want to hear how realistic some
of these carbon capture and storage projects really are in the
near term.
I personally remain cautiously optimistic, but I also still
believe that transitioning away from fossil fuel is the most
effective strategy for saving the planet for our children and
for our grandchildren, and it is going to remain a focus of
this Subcommittee. Although, this is a very fascinating subject
that we also need to look at.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lowenthal follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
The Biden administration has set goals for the United States to
reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030 and reach
net-zero emissions no later than 2050. And according to the
international scientific community, if countries worldwide reach net-
zero emissions by mid-century, we can prevent the worst impacts of
climate change from occurring.
We have no time to waste, and reaching these goals will take a
whole-of-government approach. We need to eliminate greenhouse gas
pollution from every sector of the U.S. economy, including heavy
industries that are critical to our economy but very difficult to
decarbonize. I'm talking about heavy industries like cement,
manufacturing, chemical processing, and refining.
One potential tool for these hard-to-decarbonize industries is
carbon capture and storage. But capturing the carbon dioxide before it
enters the atmosphere is just one side of the equation, and a
complicated one at that. That carbon must then be stored and monitored
for decades to come.
Which brings us to the subject of today's hearing. The Outer
Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico has tremendous potential to
permanently store large amounts of carbon dioxide that would otherwise
be emitted into the atmosphere.
State governments, industry, and academics have all expressed
interest thanks to the Gulf's unique geology and close proximity to
heavy industries that emit significant amounts of carbon pollution. The
Gulf region is also home to a highly trained offshore oil and gas
workforce whose skills and expertise are directly transferable to this
emerging industry.
And it makes sense. Instead of pumping oil out of the seabed, they
would be pumping carbon dioxide into it.
However, offshore carbon storage is most certainly not without
risk, and it is no silver bullet climate solution. Even if carbon
capture and storage moves forward in some manner, that does not mean
that highly polluting facilities should get a free pass to increase
their carbon emissions or the many other dangerous pollutants that they
spill into the air.
The Gulf region is home to over 1,000 industrial facilities that
disproportionally impact minority and low-income communities. These
types of facilities emit enormous amounts of pollution that are harming
our planet and hurting human health.
We must also gain a better understanding of the impacts of offshore
carbon storage on marine environments and the safety hazards posed by
carbon dioxide pipelines, which will be essential for moving carbon
from where it is captured and into the undersea storage reservoirs.
In 2020, a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline in Mississippi led to
the evacuation of 200 residents and the hospitalization of 45 people.
That is why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directed the
Department of the Interior to issue new safeguards for development of
carbon storage projects on the Outer Continental Shelf, in addition to
other provisions to support this industry.
It's critical that these regulations developed by the Department of
the Interior prioritize the health and safety of Gulf communities, set
strong industry standards, and provide protections for taxpayers.
Before turning it over to Ranking Member Stauber, I want to
emphasize that carbon capture and storage could be just one small piece
of our overall efforts to reduce pollution that is destroying our
planet and harming the health of fellow Americans.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels is still the most effective
strategy for saving the planet for our children and grandchildren, and
it will remain a focus of this Committee.
I also hope to hear from our witnesses today about just how
realistic some of these carbon capture and storage projects really are
in the near term. Carbon capture technology has been researched for
years, and a decade ago was pushed aggressively by coal companies to
prop-up polluting power plants. But the practice never took off, mainly
because removing carbon dioxide from smokestacks is so incredibly
expensive and uneconomic.
If capturing carbon doesn't make financial sense--and to my
knowledge, it currently doesn't without generous tax incentives--we
need to be careful about supporting just another fossil fuel industry
boondoggle.
However, while I have concerns with the capture technology and cost
side of this issue, today's hearing is more generally about storing
carbon offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
With that, I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. With that, I look forward to the testimony
of our witnesses, and I now recognize Ranking Member Stauber
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chairman Lowenthal. I
look forward to being with you in person at the next hearing.
And as you know, I value our friendship.
Today, I am excited to discuss an exciting new branch of
the Energy and Minerals Resources Subcommittee jurisdiction:
carbon capture, utilization, and storage. CCUS involves
capturing carbon dioxide from emissions streams, whether it be
right at the point of emission or from the air. Carbon is then
condensed and stored underground, or reused in other
applications.
This technology has the potential to revolutionize the
industrial sector. It is a great example of innovation that is
already deployed by firms in energy generation, steelmaking,
and many others.
For starters, various forms of carbon capture and storage
are already in effect and development in the United States on
land. Meanwhile, the Gulf of Mexico provides opportunities for
CCUS development offshore, where the favorable geology under
the sea floor offers just the right situation for storage. We
will therefore today explore the potential for offshore carbon
capture and sequestration.
But first, I would be doing a disservice to the American
people if I did not again discuss the damage inflicted on the
livelihoods of Americans by Joe Biden's policymaking, or lack
thereof. Just last week, I was able to join my close friend and
colleague, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, to an offshore
oil rig off the Louisiana coast, the Appomattox. I saw
firsthand how the oil and gas workers value safety and
environmental responsibility, while developing the resources we
need to keep energy affordable, reliable, and clean for
American families.
The issue is clear: the Administration must offer oil and
gas lease sales both onshore and offshore. The only offshore
lease sale held, Lease Sale 257, was directed by a Louisiana
court and was a resounding success. It would have generated
record revenues for the United States and would generate even
more over the life of the lease, which we would deposit into
conservation funding. However, it was predictably challenged by
activists, fundraising, and legal organizations, who were able
to win an unlawful pause.
And to make matters worse, we are only 64 days from BOEM's
current 5-year plan expiring, with no replacement in sight.
This Administration needs to follow the law and complete a
replacement plan by the July 1st deadline.
Meanwhile, onshore, the Administration was dragged kicking
and screaming into offering one single lease sale. I am happy
for the roughnecks in the West who may get a little relief, but
it does come at a cost: a higher royalty rate and an 80 percent
reduction in land offered, as the Interior Department bragged
in a recent press release.
This is what Joe Biden envisioned when he promised to end
fossil fuels as a candidate: less American resources, more
foreign imports, more expensive lives for Americans, especially
as the summer driving season is upon us. But don't take my word
for it. The White House Press Secretary recently said that the
President's policy is, and I quote, ``to ban additional
leasing.'' This is unacceptable. Joe Biden must get on the side
of American energy.
With that being said, I can now turn back to the core of
the hearing today. There are several Federal policy issues in
the offshore CCUS space for us to consider.
Last November, Interior was authorized to lease lands and
grant rights-of-way and easements for carbon storage on the
Outer Continental Shelf. The law requires regulations to be
issued within a year of enactment, and we are now only 7 months
away. As the Administration develops this framework, we have
several issues to consider.
For example, we need to ensure lease terms and long-term
viability. Carbon has the potential to be stored permanently.
Therefore, what will happen to the leased area? How will we
monitor for safety, long term? How can we ensure the waters
remain viable for multiple use?
And just like any industrial application, leasing and
regulatory certainty is paramount. We need to ensure operators
know their lease terms so they can plan, raise capital, and
invest. Unlike other sectors, carbon storage doesn't create a
commodity that can be bought and sold on a market. Firms cannot
be expected to make these massive investments without having a
baseline expectation of liability and certainty.
And lastly, we need to have a robust pipeline
infrastructure to transport carbon from point source to
sequestration. We therefore need a thoughtful and forward-
thinking policy on ocean pipelines.
Given the general attitude toward pipelines by this
Administration and the Committee Majority who, for example,
advance short-sighted legislation like the Offshore Pipeline
Safety Act, it is imperative we build consensus-driven,
bipartisan solutions.
In closing, I look forward to diving into the prospect of
capturing, transporting, and storing carbon offshore.
I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member Stauber.
I believe that Ranking Member Westerman will not be making
an opening statement.
Mr. Stauber. That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Lowenthal. Then I am going to now introduce today's
witnesses.
Dr. Tip Meckel is a Senior Research Scientist for the
Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at
Austin.
Mr. Carroll Muffett is the President and CEO of the Center
for International Environmental Law.
Ms. Nichole Saunders, who is joining us remotely, is the
Director and Senior Attorney for Energy Transition at the
Environmental Defense Fund.
And Mr. Erik Milito is the President of the National Ocean
Industries Association.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but that
their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
When you begin, the timer will begin, and it will turn
orange when you have 1 minute remaining.
I recommend that Members and witnesses joining remotely pin
the timer so that it remains visible.
After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
I will allow the entire panel to testify before questioning
the witnesses.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Meckel for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIP MECKEL, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, BUREAU OF
ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN,
TEXAS
Dr. Meckel. Thank you. Subcommittee Chair Lowenthal,
Ranking Member Stauber, and Subcommittee members, thanks for
the invitation today to provide testimony related to the
opportunities and risks of offshore carbon storage in the Gulf
of Mexico.
I serve as a Senior Research Scientist at the Gulf Coast
Carbon Center at the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology at the
University of Texas at Austin. My expertise is in geology and
geophysics, with a specialty in carbon dioxide storage.
During my 15 years working full-time on carbon capture and
geologic storage, I have worked closely with the U.S.
Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
under the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. My
colleagues and I have led a half dozen CCS demonstration
projects, utilizing over $70 million in Federal funding. Our
center has also interacted with many companies that are
actively developing CCS projects, including offshore, both in
the United States and internationally.
Beginning in 2010, I initiated a research program to
evaluate the offshore Gulf of Mexico for carbon capture and
storage. I have completed three multi-year, offshore CCS
storage research projects to date, with one ongoing for the
western Gulf of Mexico.
We now have the first example of a successful state lease
in Texas for offshore CO2 storage, indicating
commercial market interest and viability of IRS Section 45Q tax
credits for accelerating project deployment.
Lastly, my colleagues and I at the Center are currently in
regular dialogue with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement on topics
related to offshore CCS.
In the United States and globally, we are faced with the
unprecedented challenge of providing abundant, affordable, and
reliable energy, while simultaneously mitigating the effects of
climate change associated with industrial emissions.
Both the International Panel on Climate Change and the
International Energy Agency have stated repeatedly over the
last decade that trying to address our energy needs and
associated industrial emissions will be both more expensive and
less effective without carbon capture and geologic storage.
Simply put, CCS is not a want, it is a need.
But it is important for the Subcommittee to recognize that
while CCS is a relatively new topic for the offshore in the
United States, it has been active internationally for over a
decade, and there are over 20 years of experience in developing
and deploying CCS technology in the United States, a recognized
leader in CCS. Multiple examples of successful industrial
projects exist. The primary technology components needed are at
a very high technology readiness level, and projects can
proceed safely and effectively today.
With regard to subsurface storage capacity, the Offshore
Continental Shelves represent the national end-game for
effective CCS deployment at the scale needed to mitigate
existing and future emissions. In particular, the Gulf of
Mexico Basin is one of the most studied geologic regions in the
world. Currently available subsurface data are sufficient to
initiate storage projects today. Multiple technical studies
identify hundreds of gigatons of storage capable of addressing
national emissions for decades.
Considering the opportunities that offshore CCS affords,
it is important to recognize the following:
An offshore CCS industry would facilitate the
mitigation of significant quantities of CO2
emissions from industrial point sources and would
increase the nation's ability to reach stated
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
The development of a successful offshore CCS industry
will both retain, as well as create, significant long-
term, diverse, and high-paying jobs.
Development of offshore CCS will lead to international
competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global energy
transition.
Offshore CCS can be an important part of addressing
environmental justice issues related to the energy
transition.
The opportunity exists to repurpose existing
infrastructure nearing the end of its production cycle
for CCS and avoid decommissioning costs.
Considering the risks that CCS presents, the following
points are critical to understand:
CCS science is mature, and subsurface injection of
CO2 for emissions abatement is demonstrably
safe and effective.
Primary risks include migration of buoyant fluids
toward the surface and marine environment via legacy
wellbores or geologic pathways.
The management of induced pressure in the subsurface
associated with CO2 injection is important
for understanding the project location and adjacent
proximity, while minimizing potential for induced
seismicity.
The technologies needed for effective monitoring of
subsurface CO2 injection projects are mature
and exist today.
The costs of CCS are currently quite high. Current IRS
tax credits, valued at $39 a ton, are capable of
initiating some projects, but tax credit values closer
to $85 a ton would generate a significant additional
increase in project development.
Public perception of CCS is uneven, although many have
become more supportive once they are provided
additional information on benefits and risks.
In conclusion, I believe the Gulf of Mexico represents the
single best opportunity for developing a CCS industry in the
United States that can effectively address national emission
reduction strategies at the required scale. The opportunities
are economically impactful, can significantly mitigate
emissions for reaching our national targets, and the risks are
manageable and monitoring is mature. We are ready to proceed.
I encourage the Subcommittee to recognize the ability to
simultaneously address future abundant, affordable, and
reliable energy needs, while reducing industrial emissions and
addressing climate change by establishing permitting and
regulations needed for safe and timely development of an
offshore CCS industry in the OCS, specifically in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these
perspectives, and I am happy to field any questions as time
allows.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Meckel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Timothy A. `Tip' Meckel, Senior Research
Scientist, CCS Expert, Geology and Geophysics
Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin
Subcommittee Chair Alan Lowenthal, Ranking Member Pete Stauber, and
Subcommittee Members: Thank you for inviting me today to provide
testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
oversight hearing titled: ``The Opportunities and Risks of Offshore
Carbon Storage in the Gulf of Mexico.''
I serve as a Senior Research Scientist at the Gulf Coast Carbon
Center at the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of
Texas at Austin. My expertise is in geology and geophysics, with a
specialty in carbon dioxide storage.
During my 15 years working full time on Carbon Capture and Geologic
Storage (CCS), I have worked closely with the U.S. Department of
Energy--National Energy Technology Laboratory under the Office of
Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. My colleagues and I have led a
half dozen CCS demonstration projects utilizing over $70 million
dollars in Federal funding. Our Center has also interacted with many
companies that are actively developing CCS projects, including
offshore, both in the United States and internationally.
Beginning in 2010, I initiated a research program to evaluate the
offshore Gulf of Mexico for CCS. I have completed three multi-year
offshore CCS storage research projects to date, with one ongoing for
the western Gulf of Mexico. We now have the first example of a
successful State lease for offshore CO2 storage, indicating
commercial market interest and viability of IRS Section 45Q tax credits
for accelerating project deployment.
Lastly, my colleagues and I at the Center are currently in regular
dialog with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) on topics related to
offshore CCS.
In the United States, and globally, we are faced with the
unprecedented challenge of providing abundant affordable and reliable
energy, while simultaneously mitigating the effects of climate change
associated with industrial emissions.
Both the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the
International Energy Agency (IEA) have stated repeatedly over the last
decade that trying to address our energy needs and associated
industrial emissions will be both more expensive and less effective
without carbon capture and geologic storage. Simply put, CCS is not a
`want', it is a `need'.
It is important for the subcommittee to recognize that while CCS is
a relatively new topic for the offshore, there are over 20 years of
experience in developing and deploying CCS technology in the United
States, a recognized leader in CCS. Multiple examples of successful
industrial projects exist. The primary technology components needed are
at a very high Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and projects can
proceed safely and effectively today.
With regard to subsurface storage capacity, the Offshore
Continental Shelves (OCS) represent the national end-game for effective
CCS deployment at the scale needed to mitigate existing and future
emissions. In particular, the Gulf of Mexico basin is one of the most
studied geologic regions in the world. Currently available subsurface
data are sufficient to initiate storage projects today. Multiple
technical studies identify hundreds of gigatons of storage capable of
addressing national emissions for decades.
Considering the opportunities that offshore CCS affords, it is
important to recognize the following:
An offshore CCS industry would facilitate the mitigation
of significant quantities of CO2 emissions from
industrial point sources, and would increase the nation's
ability to reach stated greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets.
The development of a successful offshore CCS industry will
both retain and create significant long-term, diverse, and
high-paying jobs.
Development of offshore CCS will lead to international
competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global energy
transition.
Offshore CCS can be an important part of addressing
environmental justice issues related to the energy
transition.
The opportunity exists to re-purpose existing
infrastructure nearing the end of its production cycle for
CCS and avoid decommissioning costs.
Considering the risks that CCS presents, the following points are
critical to understand:
CCS science is mature and subsurface injection of
CO2 for emissions abatement is demonstrably safe
and effective.
Primary risks include migration of buoyant fluids toward
the surface and marine environment via legacy wellbores or
geologic pathways.
The management of induced pressure in the subsurface
associated with CO2 injection is important for
understanding project location and adjacent proximity,
while minimizing potential for induced seismicity.
The technologies needed for effective monitoring of
subsurface CO2 injection projects are mature.
The costs of CCS are currently quite high. Current IRS tax
credits (similar in structure to those for solar and wind
development) valued at $39/ton are capable of initiating
some projects, but tax credit values closer to $85/ton
would generate a significant additional increase in project
deployment.
Public perception of CCS is uneven, although many become
more supportive once they are provided additional
information on the benefits and risks.
In conclusion, I believe the Gulf of Mexico represents the single
best opportunity for developing a U.S. CCS industry that can
effectively address national emission reduction strategies at the
required scale. The opportunities are economically impactful, can
significantly mitigate emissions for reaching our national targets, and
the risks are manageable and monitoring is mature. We are ready to
proceed.
I encourage the subcommittee to recognize the ability to
simultaneously address future abundant affordable and reliable energy
needs while reducing industrial emissions and addressing climate change
by establishing permitting and regulations needed for safe and timely
development of an offshore CCS industry in the OCS.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these perspectives, and I
am happy to field any questions you may have as time allows.
*****
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
CONCEPTUALIZATION--Offshore storage components related to CCS
project development are shown below. Not all projects will have all
these components, but this image provides a sense of what types of
infrastructure can be involved. Image courtesy of the Global CCS
Institute.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
JOBS
The Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and natural gas industry is
estimated to support around 370,000 jobs per year. In 2019, the Gulf of
Mexico oil and natural gas industry contributed an estimated $28.7
billion of to the U.S. economy. Developing a CCS industry in the Gulf
of Mexico will maintain and expand similar employment levels and
provide similar impact to the national economy. Throughout the Gulf,
the offshore energy industry employs thousands of surveyors, engineers,
geologists, technicians, and scientists and indirectly supports
thousands of contractors and support service employees. The CCS
industry is expected to rival the size of the current hydrocarbon
production industry.
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
Many countries have already undertaken offshore CO2
capture and geologic storage projects, most notably Norway, UK, Brazil,
and Japan. Other countries are actively developing capabilities,
including Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, Netherlands, and South
Africa. Energy development in these countries is currently strongly
linked to emissions abatement in service of national stated targets for
2030 and 2050.
In the Gulf Coast, we have already seen some LNG export shipments
rejected from European ports due to their high environmental impact.
Many of these export companies are now positioning to provide LNG
exports (as well as hydrogen and ammonia) that have reduced carbon
intensity, which they see as a competitive advantage. The technologies
associated with development in these export industries are
internationally significant, including development of offshore
CO2 storage.
Many industrial ports are currently recognizing the importance of
incorporating CCS into their future port competitiveness. For example,
the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas (the largest energy port in the US)
is actively developing CCS, and has established Memoranda of
Understanding with international ports such as Rotterdam, to rapidly
provide CCS to the port's industrial tenants.
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
We are already witnessing a transition to lower carbon intensity in
the LNG export industry, but the associated patents and technology
development have global significance. US companies can lead in this new
technology landscape.
The Gulf of Mexico can become the lowest-cost and largest-scale
storage province in the world, establishing a dominant role for CCS
similar to its hydrocarbon production history.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental justice issues have become an important focal point
for all aspects of the energy transition. Many of the communities
directly affected by current unabated CO2 emissions will
benefit from CCS activities that improve local air quality while
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The development of
CCS will have additional benefit of improving emissions attainment
targets for many of the local communities most affected by industrial
emissions. In addition, by developing offshore storage, project
development will not directly impact local communities, while providing
additional jobs to those areas.
REPURPOSING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
The Gulf of Mexico is one of the largest infrastructure
decommissioning markets in the world. The possibility to re-purpose
existing infrastructure (pipelines, rights-of-way, and platforms) would
avoid costly decommissioning, while allowing for accelerated CCS
deployment. This topic is rapidly developing, but provides a potential
opportunity to leverage existing infrastructure in rapidly developing
CCS in offshore settings.
DATA AVAILABILITY
There is a significant amount of current data availability on the
OCS that can be leveraged for developing CCS projects. The pink areas
in the maps below show data available in the continental US (left) and
in the Gulf of Mexico (right). These data cover hundreds of thousands
of square miles.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EXPERIENCE
Over the last 20 years, the US Department of Energy has spent
billions of dollars developing CCS technology, which is now at a high
technology readiness level and ready for widespread deployment.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The summary images below illustrate the current state of CCS in
the Americas as determined by the Global CCS Institute.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
All of the components of CCS currently have some technologies
at high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in the deployment phase. Each
component also has many technologies at lower TRL level that will
continue to be developed for fit-to-purpose projects. The image below
is from the National Petroleum
Council Report: Meeting the Dual Challenge--A Roadmap to At-Scale
Deployment of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage. The report was provided
to the Secretary of Energy in 2019.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COSTS
The costs of CCS are high, mostly related to emissions capture
engineering, but also including transport and subsurface storage. The
costs of capture technology are falling, as is typical for all
technologies as they move from demonstration to commercial deployment.
The National Petroleum Council study provides the graphic below for
considering the amount of CO2 abatement possible (horizontal
axis--millions of tons of CO2), and the approximate costs
for mitigating incremental amounts of CO2 emission. The
current IRS Section 45Q tax credit is around $39/ton and consideration
is underway to raise that to $85/ton. At $85/ton credit value, NPC
estimates that approximately 150 million tons of CO2 could
be abated. Currently, companies are paying as much as $600/ton for
carbon offsets, suggesting the value of carbon may eventually rise to
allow for mitigation of billions of tons of CO2, which would
be a significant portion of the national targets by 2050.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INDUCED PRESSURE
Decades of wastewater injection in the onshore counties of the Gulf
of Mexico geologic basin indicate that risks of induced seismicity in
Gulf of Mexico geology are low and unlikely to replicate our onshore
experience in older and more brittle onshore geologic basins.
Examples of giga-ton scale storage are illustrated by this
wastewater injection experience, illustrating the value of Gulf of
Mexico geology (and OCS in general) as a CO2 storage
resource.
MIGRATION OF BUOYANT FLUIDS
The offshore region has lower density of legacy wells than onshore,
and those wells are generally younger with better documented
engineering.
Prior experience onshore managing CO2 retention has been
accomplished in projects involving hundreds of CO2 injection
wells. Offshore projects will benefit from this experience.
MONITORING
Using Department of Energy funding, I have personally led the
deployment of 3D seismic subsurface imaging technology for CCS
monitoring both in the Gulf of Mexico and in Japan. New technologies
will evolve, but we know how to monitor injection sites for safe
operation today.
European experience with CO2 monitoring of both offshore
subsurface and marine ecosystems provides a strong background for work
in the US offshore.
SELECT REFERENCES
Department of Energy--National Energy Technology Laboratory, Offshore
Characterization Field Projects, https://www.netl.doe.gov/carbon-
storage/offshore
Meckel, TA, and RT Trevino, 2014, Gulf of Mexico Miocene CO2
Site Characterization Mega Transect--Final Scientific Technical Report,
submitted to US Department of Energy, 682 p. https://www.osti.gov/
biblio/1170172-gulf-mexico-miocene-co-site-characterization-mega-
transect
National Petroleum Council, 2019, Meeting the Dual Challenge--A to At-
Scale Deployment of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage: https://
dualchallenge.npc.org/downloads.php
Ringrose, PS, and TA Meckel, Maturing global CO2 storage
resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS emissions
reductions, Nature--Scientific Reports, 9:17994 https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41598-019-54363-z
Smyth RC, Hovorka SD. 2018. Best management practices for offshore
transportation and sub-seabed geologic storage of carbon dioxide.
Sterling (VA): US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management. OCS Study BOEM 2018-004. 259 p. https://espis.boem.gov/
final%20reports/5663.pdf
Trevino, RT, and TA Meckel, 2017, Geological CO2
sequestration atlas of Miocene strata, offshore Texas state waters,
Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations No. 283, Seven
chapters, 1 appendix, 74 p. https://store.beg.utexas.edu/reports-of-
investigations/3415-ri0283-atlas.html
Vidas, H., B. Hugman, A. Chikkatur, B. Venkatesh. 2012. Analysis of the
Costs and Benefits of CO2 Sequestration on the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management. Herndon, Virginia. OCS Study BOEM 2012-100. https://
www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/BOEM/
Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Energy_Economics/External_Studies/
OCS%20Sequestration%20Report.pdf
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Meckel.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Muffett for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARROLL MUFFETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Muffett. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber,
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
address you today.
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law
has used the power of law to protect the environment, promote
human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society. Carbon
capture and storage advances none of those objectives.
Opposition to CCS is growing rapidly. The White House
Environmental Justice Advisory Council says CCS will not
benefit communities. Climate Action Network International, the
world's largest network of climate organizations, says CCS is
not a viable solution to the climate crisis.
Last summer, hundreds of organizations urged congressional
leaders to reject CCS as a false and dangerous solution to
climate change. In its latest report, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change recognized the heavy reliance on CCS in
many climate plans, but warned of its serious risks and
limitations and identified CCS as among the highest cost,
lowest potential of all climate mitigation options.
And communities across the Gulf Coast, the Midwest, the
Ohio Valley, and beyond are mobilizing and litigating to stop
CCS projects. Why? Because CCS is not a climate solution.
Despite decades of industry experience, existing CCS
projects capture less than \1/10\ of 1 percent of
CO2 emissions and have been marked by repeated and
conspicuous failures.
CCS is energy intensive, making facilities that use it more
costly and less efficient.
When renewable energy is already the cheapest source of new
energy for most people, CCS just makes the bad economics of
fossil fuels even worse.
The industry's only economical carbon storage solution is
using captured carbon to produce even more oil. More than 95
percent of U.S. CCS capacity and development is designed to
increase oil production, not reduce emissions.
Nor can the need to decarbonize industries justify massive
new CCS infrastructure. An analysis of the CCS potential at
more than 1,500 industrial facilities in the United States
found CCS technically and economically feasible at only 123 of
them, just 8 percent of the total. Even if CCS worked, building
a massive new infrastructure for CCS would raise profound
environmental, health, and safety risks for communities across
the United States, with disproportionate impact on communities
of color.
The roughly 5,000 miles of existing CO2
pipelines are heavily concentrated in remote oil fields. CCS
proponents call for 65,000 miles or more of new pipelines,
including in heavily populated areas, putting communities at
significant risk.
Compressed CO2 is highly corrosive, increasing
the risks of leaks and pipeline ruptures. Co2 is also an
intoxicant, an asphyxiate. At high concentrations, it can
result in unconsciousness, coma, and death. A CO2
pipeline rupture near Satartia, Mississippi sent dozens to the
hospital, with first responders reporting people frothing at
the mouth and wandering around like zombies.
The Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana are among the few
places that combine large-scale CO2 storage
potential with a dense concentration of high-emitting
facilities. As a result, risky CCS infrastructure is being
heavily targeted on communities that have already suffered
decades of environmental injustice. CCS will only increase the
burdens on those communities.
When CO2 is injected into saline aquifers,
failure to manage reservoir pressures can cause earthquakes,
contamination of drinking water, and the potential failure of
storage sites, resulting in CO2 leaks into the
environment and atmosphere. Managing these pressures may
require pumping enormous amounts of saline brines from
CO2 storage reservoirs, creating a massive and
potentially hazardous new waste stream.
These risks are compounded when CO2 is injected
below the ocean. Experience with natural gas demonstrates that
offshore pipelines are at higher risk of failure than those
onshore. Eighty years of drilling has left the Gulf of Mexico
pockmarked with 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells. The Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management acknowledges that it does not know
how many of those wells are already leaking, and leakage from
old wells is one of the most likely failure points for offshore
CO2 storage.
Keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees requires cutting
global CO2 emissions in half by 2030. Publicly
subsidized CCS will undermine emission reduction efforts,
squander resources, lock in fossil fuel infrastructure, and
expose communities in the Gulf Coast and beyond to potentially
catastrophic health, safety, and environmental risks,
compounding the environmental injustice borne by people of
color and low-income communities.
CCS is a false solution, a dangerous distraction, and a new
but completely avoidable chapter in this country's long history
of environmental injustice and systemic racism.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muffett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carroll Muffett, President and CEO, Center for
International Environmental Law
Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today on the
issue of carbon capture and offshore carbon dioxide storage.
Since 1989, the nonprofit Center for International Environmental
Law (CIEL) has used the power of law to protect the environment,
promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society. As
part of that mission, CIEL has undertaken legal and policy research on
the causes, consequences, and responses to the climate crisis for more
than three decades. This work includes active and ongoing research into
the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis, the history of
carbon capture technologies, the potential role of such technologies in
addressing the drivers of the climate crisis, and the corresponding
risks to communities and the environment.
The proposed large-scale, publicly subsidized, deployment of carbon
capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture utilization and storage
(CCUS) (herein collectively referred to as ``CCUS'') is neither a
necessary nor an appropriate strategy for addressing the climate crisis
and the enormous, systemic, and unjust pollution burdens the fossil
economy imposes on frontline and fenceline communities across the
United States, particularly on communities of color. Despite billions
of dollars of investment and decades of development, deployment of CCUS
has consistently proven ineffective, uneconomic, and counter-productive
for the needed transition to fossil-free energy. Existing CCUS
facilities have the capacity to capture only approximately one-tenth of
one percent (00.1%) of annual global CO2 emissions from
energy combustion and industrial processes.\1\ Proposals to massively
expand CCUS and build enormous new networks of CO2 pipelines
and storage sites across the United States are not only unrealistic,
but risky for people and the environment. Offshore storage of
CO2 poses heightened environmental and health risks,
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. The complexity of monitoring and
managing geologic pressure underground is only magnified when injection
takes place subsea at great depths, and interaction with existing oil
and gas production and ill-maintained legacy wells in the Gulf only
increases the risk of leak and accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Global CCUS Institute, Global Status of CCUS (2021), at 12
(describing the current installed capacity of CCUS as 40 Mtpa), https:/
/www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-Global-
Status-of-CCUS-Report_Global_CCUS_Institute.pdf. Global CO2 emissions
from energy combustion and industrial processes were approximately 36.3
billion tons CO2 in 2021. International Energy Agency (IEA), Press
Release, Global CO2 emissions rebounded to their highest level in
history in 2021 (Mar. 8, 2022), https://www.iea.org/reports/global-
energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, CCUS faces significant and growing public opposition.
The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council called out CCUS
as a ``type[] of project that will not benefit a community,'' noting
that ``it would be unreasonable to have any climate investment working
against historically harmed communities.'' \2\ The 1,500 member-
organizations of Climate Action Network (``CAN'') International adopted
a shared position statement declaring that the members ``do[] not
consider currently envisioned CCUS applications as proven sustainable
climate solutions.'' \3\ In July 2021, over 500 international, U.S.,
and Canadian organizations sent an open letter to lawmakers calling on
them to reject CCUS as a ``dangerous distraction.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Justice40
Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool & Executive Order 12898
Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations at 57, 59 (May 13, 2021),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/whiteh2.pdf.
\3\ CAN Position: Carbon Capture, Storage, and Utilization, Climate
Action Network Int'l at 9 (2021), https://climatenetwork.org/resource/
can-position-carbon-capture-storage-and-utilisation/.
\4\ Letter from Center for International Environmental Law et al.
to Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer re: Carbon capture is not
a climate solution (July 19, 2021), https://www.ciel.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2021/07/CCUS-Letter_FINAL_US-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Capture is Not a New Technology
The technology for capturing carbon dioxide from smoke stacks and
waste streams has been well known for more than half a century. A
patent application filed by Standard Oil (now Exxon) researchers in
1949 described the process of removing CO2 from flue gases
as ``perfectly workable, but cumbersome'' and energy intensive.\5\ As
early as 1980, internal Exxon documents acknowledged that the industry
had the technology to cut CO2 emissions from flue gases by
up to 50%, but asserted that doing so was simply too expensive.\6\
Similarly, oil and gas companies patented the first technologies for
injecting CO2 into the ground at least fifty years ago, for
the purpose not of addressing the climate crisis but of producing more
oil.\7\ Even as it downplayed the value of carbon capture for combating
climate change, however, the oil industry spent decades expanding its
infrastructure to capture and inject CO2 for use in Enhanced
Oil Recovery (EOR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Production of Pure Carbon Dioxide, www.smokeandfumes.org,
https://www. smokeandfumes.org/documents/61 (last visited Apr. 26,
2022); Production of Pure Carbon Dioxide, U.S. Patent No. 2,665,971
(issued Jan. 12, 1954). See also Method for Recovering a Purified
Component From a Gas, www.smokeandfumes.org, https://
www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/48 (last visited Apr. 26, 2022);
Petroleum Recovery With Inert Gas, www.smokeandfumes.org, https://
www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/62 (last visited Apr. 26, 2022);
Process For The Removal of Acidic Gases From a Gas Mixture,
www.smokeandfumes.org, https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/49 (last
visited Apr. 26, 2022).
\6\ Imperial Oil, Review of Environmental Protection Activities for
1978-1979, at 2 (available at https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/
1980-imperial-oil-review-of-environmental-protection-activities-for-
1978-1979/) (internal document of Esso (now ExxonMobil) subsidiary
Imperial Oil acknowledging that there is ``no doubt'' that fossil fuel
usage was ``aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the
atmosphere''; and stating that ``Technology exists to remove
CO2 from stack gases, but removal of only 50% of the CO2
would double the cost of power generation.''); see also, Anthony
Albanese & Meyer Steinberg, Environmental Control Technology for
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Energy Vol, 5 (7) (July 1980) 641-664
(available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
0360544280900444).
\7\ See Petroleum Recovery With Inert Gas, www.smokeandfumes.org,
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/62 (last visited Apr. 26,
2022); Petroleum Companies with Inert Gas, U.S. Patent No. 3,193,006
(issued July 6, 1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOR--using captured carbon to produce more oil and gas, which
itself will emit more CO2 when burned--is fundamentally
incompatible with responding to the climate emergency. The vast
majority of captured carbon to date has been used for EOR. In the
United States, more than 95% of all CCUS capacity is designed for
EOR,\8\ meaning ``CO2 waste products from a fossil fuel-
burning activity are used to generate more fossil fuels.'' \9\ In other
words, the one use of captured CO2 that has scaled, EOR,
generates more CO2 emissions than what is captured because
of the oil it subsequently produces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Global CCUS Institute, Global Status of CCUS 2021 62-63
(2021), https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/
2021-Global-Status-of-CCUS-Report_ Global_CCUS_Institute.pdf.
\9\ Center for International Environmental Law, Confronting the
Myth of Carbon Free Fossil Fuels: Why Carbon Capture is Not a Climate
Solution 8 (2021), https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/
Confronting-the-Myth-of-Carbon-Free-Fossil-Fuels.pdf. Globally, 73% of
the CO2 captured globally each year is used for EOR
projects. Global CCUS Institute, Global Status of CCUS 63 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCUS Is Not Carbon Negative, or Even Carbon Neutral
CCUS is not carbon negative, or even carbon neutral. Proponents of
point-source CO2 capture, which involves collecting
emissions from a polluting facility, often claim that CCUS can remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But CCUS is not carbon removal. At
best, even if CCUS functioned in practice as it does in theory, it
could only prevent some emissions from being released, not eliminate
those already in the atmosphere.
In practice, however, CCUS projects around the world have
consistently failed to meet even those partial emission reduction
targets. Indeed, the history of CCUS is riddled with failures. High-
profile projects such as Petra Nova,\10\ Boundary Dam,\11\ and Archer
Daniels Midland's Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage
Project \12\ have all failed to meet capture or performance targets.
These failures apply to pre-combustion capture as well. The Gorgon gas
separation plant in Australia is the country's only commercial-scale
CCUS project and one of the largest in the world. In July 2021,
Chevron, operator of the project, admitted that the project failed to
meet its five-year capture target of 80% CO2, and is now
seeking a deal with regulators on how to make up for millions of tons
of CO2 emitted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Nichola Groom, Problems plagued U.S. CO2
capture project before shutdown: document, Reuters (Aug. 6, 2020),
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-carbon-capture/problems-
plagued-u-s-co2-capture-project-before-shutdown-document-idUSKCN2523K8.
\11\ See Carlos Anchondo, CCUS `red flag?' World's sole coal
project hits snag, E&E News (Jan. 10, 2022), https://www.eenews.net/
articles/ccs-red-flag-worlds-sole-coal-project-hits-snag/.
\12\ See Jonathan hettinger, Despite hundreds of millions in tax
dollars, ADM's carbon capture program still hasn't met promised goals,
Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting (Nov. 19, 2020), https://
investigatemidwest.org/2020/11/19/despite-hundreds-of-millions-in-tax-
dollars-adms -carbon-capture-program-still-hasnt-met-promised-goals/.
\13\ See Graham Readfearn, Australia's only working carbon capture
and storage project fails to meet target, The Guardian (Nov. 11, 2021),
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/12/australias-only-
working-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-fails-to-meet-target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponents of CCUS have all but admitted that projects cannot
achieve a 75% minimum capture rate, let alone the 90-95% capture rates
promised in project proposals and assumed in scientific models.\14\
During the recent debate over the Build Back Better Act, a proposal was
included to require electricity-generating facilities to capture 75% of
their carbon emissions to qualify for tax credits under section 45Q. A
letter from CCUS proponents challenged this requirement, noting that
75% capture would be difficult to guarantee and would impede any
projects from receiving financing.\15\ Clearly, the 90% or greater
capture rates promised by the industry--and relied on in models
demonstrating the value of CCUS--are simply aspirational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) indicates that models depicting deployment of CCUS assume
a capture rate of 90-95%. IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D.
McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A.
Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926,
available at https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/
IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf [hereinafter, WGIII report],
at n. 37, SPM-20 (``In this context, capture rates of new installations
with CCUS are assumed to be 90-95% +'') & n. 55, SPM-36 (``In this
context, `unabated fossil fuels' refers to fossil fuels produced and
used without interventions that substantially reduce the amount of GHG
emitted throughout the life-cycle; for example, capturing 90% or more
from power plants, or 50-80% of fugitive methane emissions from energy
supply.'').
\15\ See Benjamin Storrow, Big payout, more CO2: Greens
split over Dems' CCUS plan, E&E News (Dec. 16, 2021), https://
www.eenews.net/articles/big-payout-more-co2-greens-split-over-dems-ccs-
plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to industry portrayals, point-source carbon capture may
actually increase life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and criteria
pollutants due to the increased energy needed to operate the energy-
intensive capture equipment. Energy penalties associated with carbon
capture can increase the energy used by the underlying facility by 20-
30% or more,\16\ requiring additional combustion of fossil fuels which
in turns produces significant additional emissions of other
pollutants.\17\ The additional energy required by CCUS also increases
upstream emissions from the additional oil and gas production or coal
mining required to fuel the process. A study examining the life cycle
impacts of CCUS at fossil fuel power plants found that even if
facilities achieved a 100% capture rate, the social cost would still be
greater than replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, which
reduces air pollution and avoids the expense of capture equipment.\18\
In other words, the life cycle pollution and social harms from CCUS at
fossil fuel-fired powerplants result in more harm than good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See IPCC, WGIII, Ch. 6, at 6-38 (noting that the energy
penalty from CCUS ``increases the fuel requirement for electricity
generation by 13-44%''); Budinis, S., Krevor, S., MacDowell, N.,
Brandon, N., Hawkes, A. (2018). An assessment of CCUS costs, barriers
and potential. Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 22, November 2018, pp. 61-
81, at 67-68 (discussing energy and efficiency penalty estimates for
coal and gas), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003.
\17\ See also Clark Butler, IEEFA, Carbon Capture and Storage Is
About Reputation, Not Economics at 4 (2020), https://ieefa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/CCUS-Is-About-Reputation-Not-Economics_July-
2020.pdf.
\18\ Taylor Kubota, Stanford Study casts Doubt on Carbon Capture,
Stanford News (Oct. 25, 2019), https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/
study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/, citing Mark Z. Jacobson, The health
and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture, 12 Energy
Envt. Sci. 3567 (2019), https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/
2019/ee/c9ee02709b/unauth#!divAbstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large-scale CCUS Is Neither Viable nor Necessary
The unproven scalability of CCUS technologies and their prohibitive
costs mean they cannot play any significant role in the rapid reduction
of global emissions necessary to limit warming to 1.5+C. Despite the
existence of the technology for decades and billions of dollars in
government subsidies to date, most notably through the 45Q tax credit,
deployment of CCUS at scale still faces insurmountable challenges of
feasibility, effectiveness, and expense. As an analyst from JP Morgan
Chase put it, ``The highest ratio in the history of science'' is ``the
number of academic papers written on CCUS divided by real-life
implementation of it.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Eye on the Market, Annual Energy Paper May 2021, p. 22 (2021),
https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-
on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCUS is exceedingly expensive and projects routinely face
substantial cost overruns. A study by the Government Accountability
Office of nine CCUS projects funded by the Department of Energy since
2009 (of which only three ever became operational) identified
significant cost overruns and poor economic prospects as key obstacles
to CCUS deployment.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and
Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration
Projects (2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105111.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) concurs, ranking CCUS as one of the highest cost, lowest
potential options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions this
decade.\21\ The cost of emissions reductions from wind and solar by
2030 may be as much as $50-$200 cheaper per ton of CO2
equivalent than the cost of emissions reductions through CCUS.\22\ The
IPCC found that ``The capital cost of a coal or gas electricity
generation facility with CCUS is almost double one without CCUS.
Additionally, the energy penalty increases the fuel requirement for
electricity generation by 13-44%, leading to further cost increases.''
\23\ Ultimately, as the IPCC notes, CCUS ``always adds cost.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ WGIII report, at Figure SPM.7, SPM-50.
\22\ Id.
\23\ WGIII report, Ch. 6, at 6-38.
\24\ WGIII report, Ch. 6, at 6-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research has shown that the cost reductions seen in recent years
for clean renewable energy will further erode the value of CCUS in
decarbonization efforts.\25\ The necessity of CCUS is even more suspect
since investment in carbon capture directly competes with renewable
energy generation, diverting financial resources away from proven,
available, fossil-free solutions to technology that has consistently
demonstrated itself to be infeasible from both an economic \26\ and
technical standpoint.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Neil Grant et al., Cost reductions in renewable can
substantially erode the value of carbon capture and storage in
mitigation pathways, 4 One Earth 1588 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oneear.2021.10.024.
\26\ Clark Butler, IEEFA, Carbon Capture and Storage Is About
Reputation, Not Economics at 4 (2020), https://ieefa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/07/CCUS-Is-About-Reputation-Not-Economics _July-2020.pdf;
Mai Bui et al., Carbon capture and storage (CCUS): The way forward, 11
Energy & Envtl Science 1062 at 1062, 1132, 1138, 1193 (2018), https://
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/EE/C7EE02342.
\27\ Food & Water Watch, The Case Against Carbon Capture: False
Claims and New Pollution (2020), https://foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/ib_2003_carboncapture-web. pdf; Hydrogen's
Hidden Emissions, Global Witness (Jan. 20, 2022), https://
www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossilgas/shell-hydrogen-true-
emissions/ (Shell's CCUS fitted fossil fuel derived hydrogen plant
produced more GHG emissions than it captured).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard-to-Abate Industrial Emissions Do Not Justify Large Scale CCUS
Buildout
Applying CCUS to high-emitting industrial activities, like
petrochemical, steel, or cement manufacturing, is not economical. GHG
emissions from these industries come from a diverse array of sources,
including electricity consumption, on-site fossil fuel combustion, and
process emissions, which make installing and operating CCUS even more
complex and generally more costly than it is in the power sector.
A 2020 study, co-authored by a Chevron researcher, of the potential
application of carbon capture to industrial facilities in the United
States found that a shockingly small percentage of industrial emissions
were economically suitable for carbon capture. Out of more than 1,500
industrial facilities identified by the US Environmental Protection
Agency, the researchers identified only 123 facilities that could
capture carbon economically, even with full use of available federal
subsidies and enhanced oil recovery.\28\ Even at this fraction of
industrial facilities only a portion of greenhouse gas emissions could
feasibly be captured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See H. Pilorge et al., Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration of Process Emissions from the U.S. Industrial Sector,
54(12) Envtl. Sci. Tech. 7524-7532 (2020), https://pubs.acs.org/doi/
abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b07930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petroleum refining industry is the largest source of industrial
emissions other than fossil fuel production itself, yet less than 19
percent of refinery emissions were amenable to carbon capture. For
metals processing, including steel, only a quarter of process emissions
were amenable to CCUS.\29\ In total, the researchers identified only
68.5 metric tons of CO2 per year from industrial process
emissions that could be economically captured,\30\ representing just 8
percent of all industrial emissions in the US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id. at Supporting Information, S8.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCUS Perpetuates Fossil Fuel Systems and Impacts
Carbon capture fundamentally exists to prolong the life of fossil
fuel burning infrastructure, and in doing so extends the fossil fuel
era. CCUS also presents new and additional serious environmental,
public health, and safety risks.
CCUS allows polluting facilities that already harm fenceline
communities to continue operating, rather than close and be replaced by
less harmful infrastructure. This concern is neither abstract nor
hypothetical but borne out in operating facilities. The Boundary Dam
Power Station, the sole remaining coal-fired power plant with carbon
capture operating in North America, would have been shut down but for
its retrofit with carbon capture.\31\ Instead, its owner and operator
hope to extend its operating life an additional thirty years.\32\ A
similar plan to extend the life of a coal plant in North Dakota, rather
than retire it, is currently underway.\33\ Prolonging the use of coal
and other fossil fuels is not only inconsistent with the imperative to
avoid catastrophic levels of warming; it is also at odds with
protecting public health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Kevin Rives, Only still-operating carbon capture project
battled technical issues in 2021, S&P Global (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-
newsheadlines/only-still-operating-carbon-capture-project-battled-
technical-issues-in-2021-68302671.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Dan Gearino, Sale of North Dakota's Largest Coal Plant Is
Almost Complete. Then Will Come the Hard Part, Inside Climate News
(Jan. 15, 2022), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15012022/sale-
ofnorth-dakotas-largest-coal-plant-is-almost-complete-then-will-come-
the-hard-part/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although CCUS is often touted as pollution abatement, the process
itself is a source of pollution. Carbon capture is detrimental to the
health of nearby communities--something even major companies have
recognized. As noted above, CCUS incurs a significant ``energy penalty.
The resulting increased fuel consumption also increases the production
and potential release of several criteria pollutants, such as
particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and nitric oxides, in
proportion to the additional fuel consumed.\34\ Amine-based carbon
capture units (the most common type) also use large amounts of
chemicals for the capture process, leading to additional releases of
ammonia.\35\ Notably, several companies--including Chevron
Phillips,\36\ Dow Chemical,\37\ and ExxonMobil,\38\--have cited the
increased pollution load with CCUS as a reason not to incorporate CCUS
into industrial facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Carbon capture and storage could also impact air pollution,
European Environment Agency (last modified Nov. 23, 2020), https://
www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/carbon-capture-and-storage-could.
\35\ Council on Environmental Quality, Report to Congress on Carbon
Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration at 40 (2021), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUSPermitting-
Report.pdf.
\36\ U.S. EPA, Archive Document: ``PSD Greenhouse Gas Permit
Application'' at 11 (Mar. 19, 2012), https://archive.epa.gov/region6/
6pd/air/pd-r/ghg/web/pdf/chevron_response031912.pdf.
\37\ U.S. EPA, Archive Document: ``PSD Greenhouse Gas Permit
Application Revision'' at 37 (Sept. 12, 2013), https://archive.epa.gov/
region6/6pd/air/pd-r/ghg/web/pdf/dowchemical-lh9-app-09202013.pdf.
\38\ U.S. EPA, Archive Document: ``Exxon Mobile Baytown Olefins
Plant Response'' at 22 (Oct. 16, 2012), https://archive.epa.gov/
region6/6pd/air/pd-r/ghg/web/pdf/exxonmobil-olefins-response. pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCUS therefore not only entrenches polluting activities but
exacerbates their impacts, contrary to the principles of environmental
justice. Polluting activities are already disproportionately
concentrated in Black, Brown, Indigenous and low-income communities,
and these same communities are again being targeted as sites for CCUS
deployment. CCUS proponents have targeted Southern Louisiana for what
would be among the largest CCUS projects in the world, despite those
areas being heavily overburdened by decades of toxic pollution and
ongoing industrial accidents.\39\ In Texas, ExxonMobil is leading a
consortium of companies planning to develop a large-scale carbon
capture and storage zone along the Houston Ship Channel,\40\ a zone
that already suffers from some of the worst air pollution in the
country, which is ``disproportionately shouldered by people of color,
people living in poverty, and limited-English households.'' \41\
Project developers are reportedly eyeing both onshore and offshore
storage sites for the captured carbon,\42\ but have identified the Gulf
of Mexico as holding the largest potential for CO2
storage.\43\ California's Central Valley is also being targeted for
CCUS, despite already having the state's worst air quality.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See, e.g., Gulf Coast Sequestration Makes Initial Filing to
Obtain EPA Permit for CCUS Project, Gulf Coast Sequestration (Oct. 13,
2020), https://gcscarbon.com/media/gulf-coast-sequestration-makes-
initial-filing-to-obtain-epa-permit-for-ccsproject/; see also Andrea
Robinson, Wednesday's explosion marks second in four months for
Westlake Chemical, KPLC (Jan. 27, 2022), https://www.kplctv.com/2022/
01/28/wednesdays-explosion-westlakechemical-marks-second-four-months/;
Heather Rogers, Erasing Mossville: How Pollution Killed a Louisiana
Town, Intercept (Nov. 4, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/11/04/
erasing-mossville-howpollution-killed-a-louisiana-town/.
\40\ See Sabrina Valle, Exxon plans hydrogen and carbon-capture/
storage plant near Houston, Reuters (Mar. 1, 2022), https://
www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-plans-hydrogen-
carbon-capturestorage-plant-near-houston-2022-03-02/; Heather Richard &
Carlos Anchondo, CCUS in the Gulf: Climate solution or green washing?,
E&E News (Jan. 31, 2022), https://www.eenews.net/articles/ccs-in-the-
gulf-climate-solution-or-green-washing/; Press Release, ExxonMobil,
Industry support for large-scale carbon capture and storage continues
to gain momentum in Houston (Jan. 202, 2022), https://
corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2022/
0120_Industry-support-for-large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage-gains-
momentum-in-Houston.
\41\ Yukyan Lam et al., Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) &
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS), Toxic Air
Pollution in the Houston Ship Channel: Disparities Show Urgent Need for
Environmental Justice (2021), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/
air-pollution-houston-ship-channel-ib.pdf.
\42\ Sabrina Valle, Exxon plans hydrogen and carbon-capture/storage
plant near Houston, Reuters (Mar. 1, 2022), https://www.reuters.com/
business/sustainable-business/exxon-plans-hydrogen-carbon-
capturestorage-plant-near-houston-2022-03-02/.
\43\ Heather Richard & Carlos Anchondo, CCUS in the Gulf: Climate
solution or green washing?, E&E News (Jan. 31, 2022), https://
www.eenews.net/articles/ccs-in-the-gulf-climate-solution-or-green-
washing/ (quoting an ExxonMobil spokesperson who stated ``ExxonMobil
believes the greatest opportunity for CO2 storage in the
United States is in the Gulf of Mexico'').
\44\ See, e.g., State of the Air: Most Polluted Cities, American
Lung Association, https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/
most-polluted-cities (last visited Apr. 12, 2022) (listing the nation's
most polluted cities, where three of the top five are in California's
Central Valley); see also Taylor Kubota, Stanford Study casts Doubt on
Carbon Capture, Stanford News (Oct. 25, 2019), https://
news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/, citing
Mark Z. Jacobson, The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and
direct air capture, 12 Energy Envt. Sci. 3567 (2019), https://
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/ee/c9ee02709b/
unauth#!divAbstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Injection--Whether Onshore or
Offshore--Threaten Communities & the Environment
Transporting and injecting captured carbon dioxide, whether onshore
or offshore, pose growing and poorly understood threats to communities
and the environment. Those risks are borne disproportionately by
marginalized communities, such as those in the Gulf South, already
subject to environmental racism and heightened toxic burdens from the
fossil fuel, petrochemical, and agriculture industries, now targeted
for CCUS buildout.
Transportation Risks
Transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline between the point of
capture and the site of use, injection, or storage presents
environmental, health, and safety risks. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous
substance and an asphyxiant that can be fatal at high
concentrations.\45\ To facilitate mobility, captured carbon dioxide is
compressed and transported in a supercritical state, at pressures far
higher than natural gas pipelines.\46\ Depending on the source of
capture, compressed CO2 may be mixed with other contaminants
such as hydrogen sulfide, increasing the risks of pipeline corrosion,
leaks, and rupture, and compounding the resultant health risks from
exposure. Carbon dioxide leaks from pipelines pose a potential hazard
for people and other animals. ``CO2 is denser than air and
can therefore accumulate to potentially dangerous concentrations in low
lying areas,'' displacing oxygen, and ``any leak transfers
CO2 to the atmosphere.'' \47\ These risks became reality in
February 2020, when a CO2 pipeline rupture in Mississippi
led to the evacuation of hundreds and hospitalization of dozens of
residents,\48\ with harms including extreme disorientation,
unconsciousness, and seizures.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See U.S. EPA, Appendix B: Overview of acute health effects
associated with carbon dioxide (2015), https://www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2015-06/documents/co2appendixb.pdf. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) lists and classifies the gaseous, liquid and solid
forms of Carbon Dioxide as hazardous materials for purposes of
transportation. See 49 CFR 172.
\46\ See National Petroleum Council, Meeting the Dual Challenge 6-
8, 6-11 (2021), https://dualchallenge.npc.org/files/CCUS-Chap_6-
030521.pdf.
\47\ IPCC, Chapter 4: Transport of CO2, in Special Report on Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005), at 188 (noting that CCUS ``will
require a large network of pipelines.'').
\48\ Pipeline Ruptures in Yazoo County, Dozens Rushed to the
Hospital, Miss. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (Feb. 23, 2020), https://
www.msema.org/news/pipe-ruptures-in-yazoo-county-dozens-hospitalized/.
\49\ Sarah Fowler, `Foaming at the mouth': First responders
describe scene after pipeline rupture, gas leak, Clarion Ledger, Feb.
27, 2020, https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/27/
yazoo-county-pipe-rupture-co-2-gas-leak-first-responders-rescues/
4871726002/; Dan Zegart, The Gassing of Satartia, Huffington Post (Aug.
26, 2021), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-
co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until now, most of the approximately 5,000 miles of CO2
pipelines in the United States have been in relatively sparsely
populated areas, primarily designed to service oil and gas fields.\50\
But the CCUS buildout plans under discussion today project the massive
expansion of the pipeline network into populous areas, magnifying the
safety and health risks. One study calls for the development of a
65,000-mile CO2 pipeline system in the United States, with a
throughput capacity greater than that of the country's existing oil
network, which has taken a century to build.\51\ These projections are
both unrealistic and risky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Congressional Research Service, Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCUS) in the United States 8 (2021), https://
sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44902.pdf.
\51\ Eric Larson et al., Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways,
Infrastructure, and Impacts 10 (2020), https://
netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/
Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_ FINAL.pdf. See also Eye on
the Market, Annual Energy Paper May 2021, p. 22 (2021), https://
am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-
market/future-shock-amv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing federal regulatory framework for pipelines is already
failing. As Congresswoman Jackie Spier observed, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (``PHMSA'') ``does not have
the teeth--or the will--to enforce pipeline safety in this country.''
\52\ Beyond weak enforcement, the regulatory framework itself is
insufficient. A recent report by the Pipeline Safety Trust concluded
that ``existing federal regulations do not allow for the safe
transportation of CO2 via pipelines'' because ``[t]he way
regulations currently consider and mitigate for the risks posed by
hydrocarbon pipelines in communities are neither appropriate nor
sufficient for CO2 pipelines.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Press Release, Congresswoman Speier Calls for Improved
Pipeline Safety: ``PHMSA is a Toothless Tiger'' (Apr. 14, 2015),
https://speier.house.gov/2015/4/Congresswoman-speier-calls-improved-
pipeline-safety-phmsa-toothless.
\53\ Pipeline Safety Trust, CO2 Pipelines--Dangerous and Under-
Regulated (2022), https://pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CO2-
Pipeline-Backgrounder-Final.pdf, citing Accufacts Inc., Accufacts'
Perspectives on the State of Federal Carbon Dioxide Transmission
Pipeline Safety Regulations as it relates to Carbon Capture,
Utilization, and Sequestration within the U.S. (2022), https://
pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3-23-22-Final-Accufacts-CO2-
Pipeline-Report2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inadequate regulatory framework and enforcement regimes
applicable to CO2 pipelines are particularly concerning
given proposals to retrofit existing gas pipelines, such as those in
the Gulf, for use in transporting CO2. Such retrofits would
create additional hazards, as gas pipelines are typically not built to
withstand the intense pressure and corrosive nature of compressed
CO2.\54\ Moreover, the hazard risk of CO2
released affects larger areas than the typical gas pipeline explosion,
and the location of existing pipelines if retrofitted for use in
CO2 transportation could present significant new risks for
those in the surrounding areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See National Petroleum Council, Meeting the Dual Challenge 6-
10-11 (2021), https://dualchallenge.npc.org/files/CCUS-Chap_6-
030521.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage risks
Storing CO2 underground is far from a simple, permanent
fix. Injecting CO2 underground in depleted oil and gas
reservoirs or saline formations, whether onshore or offshore, involves
complex pressure management to prevent leakage, displacement, and other
disruptions to the geologic formation. As carbon dioxide is stored in
underground saline reservoirs, it increases the pressure in the
geologic formations. The pressure buildup is an important source of
risk and a limitation on storage capacity, often overlooked in
projections of potential sequestration sites.\55\ If not properly
managed, this excess pressure can lead to earthquakes (``induced
seismicity''), create fractures that could release the carbon dioxide
back into the environment, or cause CO2 and displaced brine
to leak into shallow freshwater aquifers.\56\ Managing that pressure
requires the removal of displaced brine, also known as ``produced
water.'' \57\ But such brines, which can be saltier than seawater and
may contain toxic metals and radioactive substances, have to be
reinjected into the subsurface or otherwise disposed of properly, to
prevent adverse impacts to local aquifers, soils, and ecosystems.
Reinjection and disposal of brines is costly and adds a further
challenge to CCUS buildout.\58\ The pumping, transportation, treatment
and disposal of the produced brine also can be ``environmentally
challenging''.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Steven T. Anderson and Hossein Jahediesfanjani, Estimating the
net costs of brine production and disposal to expand pressure-limited
dynamic capacity for basin-scale CO2 storage in a saline
formation, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102 (2020)
103161, at 1 of PDF.
\56\ See, e.g., Thomas A. Buscheck et al, Pre-Injection Brine
Production for Managing Pressure in Compartmentalized CO2 Storage
Reservoirs, 63 Energy Procedia 5333, 5333 (2014), https://
reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
S1876610214023807?token=1A5DFFA48E91CC072D4AEC9297
02C2253323F976B14AC07378B7C298D2FC87BC5F2FB2C7F1F0AD2B36DA3C61984A6D83&
originRegion=us-east-1&origin Creation=20220424204627; see also Ernesto
Santibanez-Borda et al., Maximising the Dynamic CO2 storage Capacity
through the Optimisation of CO2 Injection and Brine
Production Rates, Int'l J. of Greenhouse Gas Control 80 (2019), 76-95,
at 76, https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
S175058361830118X?token=A19D9EBFC6574B7FC4E74021E
6271F4FC3E3D96DD57CEB52BCCC93CBE8D536AFB3D1825B7FAB206D4D1AD379050CD4D6
&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20220425200024.
\57\ Anderson and Jahediesfanjani, at 1 of PDF (``Pressure
management via production of in situ brine from saline formations could
be necessary to safely increase CO2 storage capacities to
targeted levels.'').
\58\ See generally Anderson and Hossein, supra (discussing the
costliness and challenges of managing brine (produced waters) to manage
pressure in CO2 storage sites).
\59\ Santibanez-Borda et al, at 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These challenges apply with equal if not greater force to offshore
storage. The complexity of that management and the difficulty of
monitoring sites for leakage or other disturbances is only magnified
when CO2 is injected underwater, particularly at great
depths.
Offshore Carbon Dioxide Storage Presents Additional Risks
The above risks and hazards are especially acute in the context of
offshore storage, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, where risks are
magnified by the extreme difficulty of the engineering environment and
the preexisting footprint and ongoing impact of oil and gas production.
Storing carbon dioxide under the Outer Continental Shelf would
require the development of a new system of offshore CO2
pipelines. Even in the best of circumstances, the construction and
operation of these pipelines could have a significant adverse impact on
ocean ecosystems and the coastal communities that depend on and are
affected by them. At worst, they present significant risks of rupture
and leakage.
The poor track record with monitoring and maintenance of existing
offshore oil and gas pipelines and wells raises concerns about capacity
to ensure that offshore CCUS would not face similar issues. The
Government Accountability Office has identified problems with pipeline
integrity and weakness in oversight of existing offshore oil and gas
infrastructure.\60\ Monitoring injection sites and managing underground
pressure are substantially more difficult undersea than on land, and
the dynamics are largely untested and unknown. The deeper the injection
sites, the lower the likelihood of detection and the more difficult
repair. Experience with leaking pipelines in the Gulf demonstrates that
undersea pipelines face significant risks of corrosion and failure.\61\
The external risks to offshore infrastructure will only be magnified as
climate impacts accelerate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Offshore Oil and Gas:
Updated Regulations Needed to Improve Pipeline Oversight and
Decommissioning (Mar. 2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-293.pdf.
\61\ See Ian J. Duncan, Developing a Comprehensive Risk Assessment
Framework for Geological Storage of CO2, Report to the US Dept. of
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (December 2014), at 240-
41 and passim Section 10, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1170168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leakage from offshore CO2 injection and storage could
have a profound effect on the surrounding marine environment, such as
making seawater more acidic and threatening sensitive marine species.
Both the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the IPCC
have recognized that the marine impacts of CO2 leakage could
be significant, from acidification to increased salinity, and that they
remain poorly understood. Knowledge gaps about the risks of leakage and
prospects for their prevention must be filled before any offshore
CO2 storage is deployed.
In a 2018 report, BOEM identified diverse risks that CO2
leakage from a reservoir via an injection well or a preexisting plugged
and abandoned oil or gas well could pose to ``(1) other sub-seabed
resources, (2) the ocean water column, (3) environmental resources in
the water column and on the seafloor, or (4) platform workers, and
result in emissions to the atmosphere.'' \62\ The IPCC has recognized
that deliberate offshore injection of CO2 could alter ocean
chemistry, exacerbating ocean acidification: ``Injection up to a few
GtCO2 would produce a measurable change in ocean chemistry
in the region of injection, whereas injection of hundreds of
GtCO2 would eventually produce measurable change over the
entire ocean volume.'' \63\ Beyond the adverse biological impacts that
dissolved CO2 may have on ocean bottom and marine
organisms,\64\ if leakage of CO2 from offshore storage sites
reaches the ocean surface, it could pose a hazard to offshore platform
workers, particularly in the event of a large or sudden release, and
may reach the atmosphere, undercutting climate impacts.\65\ Moreover,
as discussed above, improper management of displaced brines could
increase seawater salinity, which may present another environmental
shock to marine organisms.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Best Management
Practices for Offshore Transportation and Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage
of Carbon Dioxide (2018), https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/
5663.pdf, at 34.
\63\ IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
(2005), Chapter 6: Ocean Storage, at 279, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/
assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapter6-1.pdf.
\64\ IPCC Special Report, 279.
\65\ IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage, at
243, available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/
srccs_chapter5-1.pdf.
\66\ European Commission, Sub-seabed CO2 Storage: Impact on Marine
Ecosystems (ECO2), Final Report Summary, at 16, https://
cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/265/265847/final1-eco2-265847-final-
publishable-summary-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest risk of leakage from offshore storage sites comes from
their interaction with existing oil and gas wells. As BOEM notes, there
is ``widespread consensus that the highest risk for CO2
migration from a reservoir zone to the shallow subsurface or atmosphere
is associated with previously existing wellbores.'' \67\ This risk also
applies to containment failure in offshore settings.\68\ The Gulf,
which has been heavily targeted for offshore CO2 storage, is
pock-marked with legacy wells and dry well bores from decades of
drilling and extraction. This raises significant concerns that subsea
storage of CO2 in the Gulf may be particularly susceptible
to leakage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Best Management
Practices for Offshore Transportation and Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage
of Carbon Dioxide (2018), https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/
5663.pdf, at 37.
\68\ Id. (citing IPCC 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week was the twelfth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon
spill. It's a stark reminder that when things go wrong offshore it's
hard to fix. While the risks of transporting CO2 are
distinct from those associated with oil and gas, they are significant
and must be thoroughly assessed, and adequate mitigation measures,
monitoring systems and requisite financing in place before any permits
are granted.
Conclusion
The IPCC has issued a clear warning that humanity must cut global
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by roughly 50%
in the next decade to have any chance of keeping planetary warming
below 1.5C. The production and combustion of fossil fuels for energy,
transport, and industrial processes is the overwhelming driver of the
climate crisis. Ending reliance on fossil fuels is thus the fastest,
cheapest, most effective way to reduce emissions. Far from contributing
to that critical goal, the proposed massive deployments of publicly
subsidized CCUS projects threaten to delay urgently needed climate
action, undermine emission reduction efforts, squander limited
resources, lock-in fossil fuel infrastructure, and expose communities
across the Gulf Coast and throughout the United States to new and
potentially catastrophic health, safety, and environmental risks. In so
doing CCUS threatens to compound the already heavy burdens the fossil
economy has imposed for decades on people of color and low-income
communities. CCUS is a false solution, a dangerous distraction, and a
new but completely avoidable chapter in this country's long history of
environmental injustice and systemic racism. The Congressional response
to CCUS must reflect and respond to that reality.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Muffett.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Saunders for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLE SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ATTORNEY,
ENERGY TRANSITION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, AUSTIN, TEXAS
Ms. Saunders. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
today to discuss carbon storage in the Gulf of Mexico with you.
My name is Nichole Saunders, and I am a Director and Senior
Attorney with Environmental Defense Fund in Austin, Texas.
I am echoing the Chairman now on this point, but carbon
capture and storage is not a silver bullet climate solution.
These projects are complex, highly technical, costly, and
challenging. But most experts and models do agree we will need
this tool in our toolbox if we are to meet emission reduction
targets. And as much as 75 percent of captured carbon will
likely need to be injected for long-term storage in deep
underground reservoirs like those in the Gulf of Mexico. But
this process cannot be done successfully by just anyone, or
take place just anywhere.
There are three crucial minimum conditions that must be met
to ensure this practice works for both the environment and
society: First, these technologies cannot be a substitute for
parallel work to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels; Second,
and importantly, environmental justice and equity
considerations must be central to decision making on projects,
not only through thoughtful consultation and collaboration, but
also through affirmative actions and solutions directly aimed
at mitigating disproportionate burdens; and Third, policies,
incentives, and regulatory programs must be designed to ensure
the environmental integrity and safety of geologic storage
projects, including the associated infrastructure and
transport, minimizing the potential for leaks or other harms to
both the climate and marine ecosystems.
In the absence of these conditions, the perceived
opportunity of carbon storage may fail to overcome the risk
that these projects do not live up to their climate promises.
The United States has an opportunity to showcase global
leadership on this complex issue if it can meet these
conditions.
My testimony today centers on that third condition:
ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon storage
reservoirs in the Gulf. The technical issues surrounding this
challenge are of a particular and timely relevance, given the
Department of the Interior's active rulemaking on this issue.
As directed by Congress through the recent Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Interior is currently developing
regulatory programs for the purpose of long-term carbon
sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf. The agency has
until November to do this, and it will be no easy task. In its
report released just this month, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change concluded with high confidence that if the
geologic storage site is appropriately selected and managed, it
is estimated that the carbon dioxide can be permanently
isolated from the atmosphere.
And while that concept of site selection and management may
seem straightforward, appropriately meeting these objectives
is, in fact, immensely complex. Carbon storage projects can
serve their role if, and only if, they are sited, designed,
managed, and regulated in a manner that unequivocally and
transparently ensures and demonstrates the long-term technical
and environmental integrity of sequestration.
So, what exactly does that look like? Environmental Defense
Fund has a long history of collaborative engagement on well
integrity issues. Building on this experience and numerous
domestic and international references, we work together with
industry, academic, legal, and policy experts to build a set of
initial principles we believe are core to demonstrating long-
term secure storage offshore. They include the need to select
and characterize good storage locations, including carefully
assessing potential leakage pathways, safely construct and
operate wells, conduct comprehensive testing and monitoring,
develop data, modeling, and reports that demonstrate the carbon
is securely stored and expected to stay there 1,000 years or
more, ensuring proper plugging and closure processes, require
accurate and transparent accounting of sequestration claims,
and other details that are found more comprehensively in my
written testimony.
Some may argue for reduced regulatory protections, given
the remote offshore environment. But this argument simply does
not hold water, as there remains much to protect in the Gulf.
These standards are vital not only for the prevention of
atmospheric releases, but also for the protection of marine
ecosystems, water column chemistry, and other unique
environmental, ecological, and biogeochemical features,
fisheries, and economies.
In conclusion, the Gulf may offer a unique geologic
opportunity to store large volumes of captured CO2.
Whether it can be done successfully, in a way that respects
coastal communities, protects marine resources, prevents leaks
and releases, and earns public trust as a valid solution
remains to be seen. Ensuring that the United States is
committed to developing oversight programs that address the
principles for secure storage included in my testimony would be
a good start.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nichole Saunders, Director & Senior Attorney,
Environmental Defense Fund
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
offshore carbon storage in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) is a non-profit environmental research and advocacy
organization working to identify science- and market-based solutions to
major environmental challenges.
Capture of industrial and atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) has been identified in numerous scientific reviews as
a potentially useful and even essential tool in achieving timely de-
carbonization. For it to work, however, safe and reliable sequestration
methods, standards, and practices must be identified, implemented, and
proven to ensure captured carbon stays where it's stored for a
meaningful time.
Carbon storage in the Gulf may eventually serve a useful role in
reducing emissions and in meeting net-zero objectives; however, there
are three crucial, minimum conditions that must be acknowledged and
addressed to ensure this practice is done responsibly,\1\ and that it
works for both the environment and society:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ White House Council on Environmental Quality: Carbon Capture,
Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance, 87 FR 8808 (proposed Feb. 16,
2022).
1. These technologies are utilized as only one of many possible
tools for advancing de-carbonization and for cutting our
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
heavy dependence on fossil fuels;
2. Environmental justice and equity considerations must be central
to decision-making on projects, not only through thoughtful
consultation and collaboration, but also through proactive
actions and solutions directly aimed at mitigating
disproportionate burdens; and
3. Policies, incentives, and regulatory programs must be designed to
ensure the environmental integrity and safety of geologic
storage projects in the ocean environment, including
associated infrastructure and transport operations--
minimizing the potential for leaks or other harms to the
climate, marine ecosystems, and the economy.
In the absence of these conditions, carbon storage may fail to live
up to its hoped-for promise. Currently, the U.S. has an opportunity to
showcase global leadership on this complex issue if it can meet these
conditions.
EDF's testimony today centers on one core component of the third
condition--ensuring the environmental integrity of geologic carbon
storage reservoirs in the Gulf. The technical issues surrounding this
challenge are of particular and timely relevance, as is this hearing,
as the Department of Interior (DOI) is actively considering a
rulemaking on the issue.
Geologic Sequestration of CO2 and Environmental Integrity--
The DOI Rulemaking
As directed by the recent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA), DOI
is currently developing regulatory programs ``for the purpose of long-
term carbon sequestration'' on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
through processes that ``prevent the carbon dioxide from reaching the
atmosphere.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H.R. 3684 Sec. 40307(a)(4) and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(p)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has until November to do this. It will be no easy task.
Recent models suggest that as much as 75% of carbon dioxide
captured via carbon capture systems including direct air capture, will
likely be sequestered in geologic reservoirs.\3\ Moreover, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its 2005 Special
Report on CCS, concluded that well-selected, designed, and managed
geological storage sites will likely exceed 99% retention of
sequestered gases over 1,000 years.\4\ In its recent 2022 report, IPCC
built on additional research and went a step further to simply state
with ``high confidence'' that ``[i]f the geological storage site is
appropriately selected and managed, it is estimated that the
CO2 can be permanently isolated from the atmosphere.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Environmental Defense Fund (2021). Summary for
Policymakers: Carbon Management in Net-Zero Energy Systems. https://
www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/CM%20Summary
%20for%20Policymakers_FINAL.pdf.
\4\ IPCC (2005): IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and
L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 14. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf.
\5\ IPCC (2022): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van
Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M.
Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, p. 37. doi:
10.1017/9781009157926.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the concept of site selection and management may seem
straightforward, appropriately meeting these objectives is, in fact,
immensely complex. Failure on this front can cause unexpected outcomes
and compromise projects.\6\ Geologic carbon storage projects can only
serve a meaningful role in reducing emissions if--and only if--they are
sited, designed, managed, and regulated in a manner that unequivocally
and transparently ensures and demonstrates the long-term technical and
environmental integrity of sequestration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See e.g., White, J., Chiaramonte, L., Ezzedine, S., et al.
(2014). Geomechanical behavior of the reservoir and caprock system at
the In Salah CO2 storage project. PNAS 111(24), 8784-8752. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316465111 (presenting a case study of the In
Salah CO2 storage project, suggesting that operational
injection pressures fractured the reservoir and lower caprock, allowing
for pressure and likely CO2 to move into the caprock.
Although overall storage integrity wasn't compromised, the project
stopped injection. The authors and many others underscore the field
experience as a core example of the importance of careful site
selection and monitoring.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is DOI's challenge.
Getting this right is paramount for U.S. leadership on emissions
reduction and climate mitigation. A DOI rulemaking that does anything
less than establish a leading global standard for the environmental and
climate integrity of geologic sequestration offshore will not only
increase the risk of failures that return carbon to the atmosphere and
contaminate ecosystems, but it would also undermine and further weaken
public faith in the validity and strength of the U.S.'s carbon
sequestration capabilities and climate mitigation commitments,
including the 45Q tax credit.
Finally, establishing a new regulatory program and implementing and
enforcing that program comes with significant resource and human
capital considerations. Agencies must not only have adequate staff and
resources to complete reviews, but also the knowledge, expertise, and
training to do their jobs effectively. This need has been made clear in
EPA's experience onshore. It is vital that as DOI stands up this
program, it has adequate resources and training--needs that could be
met not only by funding, but also by more direct collaboration with
other expert state and federal agencies. EDF supports the appropriation
of necessary funds for this capacity building.
Marine Environments Offshore Must be Protected Just as Drinking Water
Resources are Onshore
Onshore, geologic storage of CO2 projects are regulated
by EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI program \7\--an
extensive regulation finalized by EPA in 2011 after years of technical
analysis and stakeholder engagement. EPA's authority to adopt this rule
derived from its responsibility to protect underground sources of
drinking water (USDW), but the rule is fundamentally about secure
storage of CO2 and the prevention of disaster. Some may
argue for minimal regulatory oversight offshore and a rollback of the
advanced protections of Class VI due to the absence of USDWs and
communities on the OCS, but this technicality does not equate to a lack
of risk or a sound reason to reduce regulatory protections offshore.
While the technical implementation of certain regulations and
operational principles may require adaptation for the offshore
environment, none of the below recommendations regarding secure storage
are unique to the need to protect drinking water; rather, they are
well-studied, foundational principles for ensuring containment in the
intended reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Class VI--Wells used for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon
Dioxide, EPA.GOV, https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-
sequestration-carbon-dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A containment failure either from the reservoir, or in the
transport or other handling of captured CO2, would have
likely implications not only with respect to a return to atmosphere and
reversal of climate gains, but also for marine ecosystems and water
column chemistry. In-depth study and peer-reviewed literature on this
issue is limited, reducing current understanding of the environmental
and climate consequences of water column CO2 releases. What
is known raises enough concern to know that consequences of both slow
leaks and catastrophic releases during transport or other operations
should be taken seriously. For example, a catastrophic release of
CO2 directly into the ocean water column from a pipeline or
ship--a hazard unique to geologic storage in the subseafloor--could
temporarily acidify seawater to 100 times its natural levels, for tens
of kilometers in all directions, with potentially dire consequences for
fish and other components of marine ecosystems, including the
industries and livelihoods that depend on those resources.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Siegel, D.A., DeVries, T., Doney, S.C., & Bell, T.
(2021). Assessing the sequestration time scales of some ocean-based
carbon dioxide reduction strategies. Environmental Research Letters,
16(10), 104003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0be0; Phelps,
J.J.C., Blackford, J.C., Holt, J.T., & Polton, J.A. (2015). Modelling
large-scale CO2 leakages in the North Sea. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 38, 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2014.10.013; Hofmann, G.E., Barry, J.P., Edmunds, P.J., Gates,
R.D., Hutchins, D.A., Klinger, T., & Sewell, M.A. (2010). The Effect of
Ocean Acidification on Calcifying Organisms in Marine Ecosystems: An
Organism-to-Ecosystem Perspective. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution,
and Systematics, 41(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.ecolsys.110308.120227; Jones, D.G., Beaubien, S.E., Blackford,
J.C., Foekema, E.M., Lions, J., De Vittor, C., et al. (2015).
Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental
impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage. International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 350-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2015.05.032; Rastelli, E., Corinaldesi, C., Dell'Anno, A.,
Amaro, T., Greco, S., Lo Martire, M., et al. (2016). CO2 leakage from
carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) systems affects organic matter
cycling in surface marine sediments. Marine Environmental Research,
122, 158-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.10.007; and
Molari, M., Guilini, K., Lott, C., Weber, M., de Beer, D., Meyer, S.,
et al. (2018). CO2 leakage alters biogeochemical and ecological
functions of submarine sands. Science Advances, 4(2), eaao2040. https:/
/doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ocean environment itself comes with numerous additional and
unique risk factors for geologic sequestration operations that are not
present onshore. For example, while not covered by the scope of this
testimony, in many cases, CO2 will need to be safely
transported through or upon the ocean by pipelines or ships before it
can be injected, often at significant hydrostatic pressures that vary
due to seabed depth. Indeed, comprehensive reviews \9\ of scientific
and policy concerns surrounding geologic storage have identified
transport and initial injection as the phase of projects associated
with greatest risk, underscoring further the need to cautiously address
unique transport safety considerations in the ocean environment.
Additionally, the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season brought a record-
breaking eleven storms to the U.S. coastline, four of which came ashore
in Louisiana alone.\10\ The 2021 hurricane season was also above
average.\11\ It is predicted that a warming climate will result in more
intense Atlantic hurricanes with higher rainfall rates.\12\ This
increasing risk \13\ for industrial operations in the Gulf of Mexico
must also be taken into consideration in establishing regulations
regarding the infrastructure and operational requirements for carbon
storage projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., de Coninck, H., & Benson, S.M. (2014). Carbon
dioxide capture and storage: Issues and prospects. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 39(1), 243-270. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-environ-032112-095222.
\10\ U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020).
Record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season draws to an end. https://
www.noaa.gov/media-release/record-breaking-atlantic-hurricane-season-
draws-to-end.
\11\ U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020).
Active 2021 Atlantic hurricane season officially ends. https://
www.noaa.gov/news-release/active-2021-atlantic-hurricane-season-
officially-ends.
\12\ Tom Knutson, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (2021).
Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/.
\13\ Marianna Parraga, Explainer: Stronger storms test aging U.S.
offshore oil facilities, REUTERS, https://www.reuters.com/business/
energy/stronger-storms-test-aging-us-offshore-oil-facilities-2021-09-
07/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDF strongly supports CEQ's recent recommendation that the
Department of Energy, EPA, DOI, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association collaborate on studies ``that are needed to better monitor
and verify CCUS results and understand the impacts to living marine
resources associated with geologic sequestration and monitoring efforts
on the OCS.'' \14\ In addition to this research and implementation of
the below principles for secure storage, EDF also encourages these
agencies to collaborate now on putting forth regulatory language that
ensures proactive marine protections are in place in the currently
active DOI rulemaking to the furthest extent of current scientific and
technical knowledge. Work to understand and monitor these impacts
cannot only occur long after DOI adopts and implements a leasing and
permitting program. Where gaps exist, provisions requiring additional
monitoring and study should be incorporated into the regulatory and
permitting program, alongside a process for modifying permit conditions
as new, actionable information about risks and risk control options
arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ White House Council on Environmental Quality: Carbon Capture,
Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance, 87 FR 8808 (proposed Feb. 16,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDF scientists are actively reviewing and synthesizing existing
knowledge surrounding the possible ocean environment consequences that
may arise from subseafloor geologic storage, and we look forward to the
opportunity to share our findings on an ongoing basis.
Collaboratively Developed Proposed Principles for Demonstrating Secure
Storage
Secure storage in the offshore environment demands a precautionary
approach. The remainder of this testimony focuses on a set of technical
principles EDF believes are vital to ensuring that injected carbon
stays where it is put for a meaningful period of time--a thousand years
or more. In fact, ``long-term carbon sequestration'' is now a statutory
requirement for offshore geologic carbon storage projects.\15\ Proof of
this outcome is vital not only for prevention of atmospheric releases
and public trust in carbon storage projects, but also for the
protection of marine ecosystems, water column chemistry, and other
unique environmental, ecological, and biogeochemical features that
could be affected by a potential release of stored or transported
CO2 into seawater. The below principles are core to
demonstrating the security of storage and reducing the likelihood of
leakage and other impacts from subsurface reservoirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ H.R. 3684 Sec. 40307(a)(4) and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(p)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDF developed these principles in consultation with leading
industry, academic, policy and legal experts. The principles build on
existing domestic and international regulations, standards, and
guidelines designed to ensure and require documentation for safe, long-
term containment of CO2.\16\ Where applicable, specific
sections of these references are included as footnotes and can be
consulted for both technical analysis as well as exemplary regulatory
language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ References cited include: (1) EPA's Underground Injection
Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration [hereinafter
Class VI Rule], 40 C.F.R. pt. 146; (2) International Organization for
Standardization (2017). Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and
geological storage--Geological storage [hereinafter ISO Standard No.
7914:2017], available at https://www.iso.org/standard/64148.html; (3)
International Organization for Standardization (2019). Carbon dioxide
capture, transportation and geological storage--Carbon dioxide storage
using enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) [hereinafter ISO Standard No.
27916:2019], available at https://www.iso.org/standard/65937.html
(relevant as an approved means for demonstrating secure storage to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for Section 45Q (86 FR 4728); (4) The
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2009).
Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
the European Union on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide and
amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council
Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC
and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. [hereinafter EU Directive], available
at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/
?uri=CELEX:32009L0031; (5) U.S. Internal Revenue Service (2009), Notice
2009-83: Credit for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration under Section 45Q.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-83.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDF believes that Congress can and should monitor the development
of the offshore storage regulatory program to ensure that each of these
issues is addressed in DOI's active rulemaking. Recognizing the
technical nature of these principles, we would welcome an opportunity
to provide further briefing, and our experts would be happy to work
with Members as you analyze and assess the forthcoming DOI proposal or
relevant legislative issues.
EDF's Recommended (and Abbreviated) Principles: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A full, technical version of the principles has been submitted
to the Department of Interior.
Limit Carbon Dioxide Stream Contents: Section 40307 of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires that a
carbon dioxide stream consist overwhelmingly of carbon
dioxide. We recommend consulting EPA's Class VI definition
of carbon dioxide stream for language that will make sure
that any other substances included are incidental and not
added for the purposes of disposal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 146.81(d) & 146.90(a); ISO 27914: 2017
3.7; ISO 27916: 2019 3.7; EU Directive 2009/31/EC 12.1.
Select and Characterize Good Sites: Proper site selection
and site characterization is a fundamental step toward
containment assurance. It is needed to confirm that sites
have sufficient storage capability and trapping means to
enable long-term containment. At each site,
characterization must include a robust identification of
potential leakage pathways in order to enable a site-
specific monitoring program and set the stage for an
eventual determination of whether long-term storage can be
achieved with high confidence.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.83 (a); IRS Notice 2009-83
5.02(b)(i)(A); ISO 27914: 2017 5.1; ISO 27916: 2019 5.2 ; EU Directive
2009/31/EC Art. 4, Annex I.
Select and Characterize Good Reservoirs. Storage should
only be allowed in reservoirs that have sufficient areal
extent, thickness, porosity, and permeability to receive
the total anticipated volume of the carbon dioxide stream
and that also have a confining zone and other necessary
containment means sufficient to prevent loss of
CO2 from the storage reservoir.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.83 (a)(1) & (2); ISO 27914: 2017
5.4; ISO 27916: 2019 3.10, 5.2; EU Directive 2009/31/EC Art. 4.3, Annex
I.
Identify and Assess Leakage Pathways: An area of review
(AOR) should be delineated using computational modelling
that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of
the injected CO2 stream and displaced formation
fluids, and should be based initially on available site
characterization, monitoring, and operational data.
Regulatory requirements should provide for adjustment of
the area as each project and its site's characteristics are
better understood. Using these data, the modelling should
project the lateral and vertical migration of carbon
dioxide and formation fluids in the subsurface from the
commencement of injection activities until long-term
containment is demonstrated and closure requirements are
otherwise met. Regulations should require the
identification and formal risk assessment of potential
leakage pathways associated with the AOR.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.84; ISO 27914: 2017 3.3, 4.2.3,
6.1; ISO 27916: 2019 6.1.1, 6.1.2; IRS Notice 2009-8 3.02(b)(i)(B).
Safely Construct and Operate Wells: Construction and
completion requirements should prevent the movement of
fluids into or between unauthorized zones. Wells should be
spaced to avoid unplanned pressure interference from other
injection wells. Older wells should only be allowed to
transition to geologic sequestration purposes if they were
engineered and constructed to fully prevent the movement of
fluids into or between any unauthorized zones. For
operations, regulations should ensure that injection does
not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures
in the confining zone and that internal and external
mechanical integrity is appropriately maintained.
Documentation of well monitoring should be required in
order to track whether appropriate pressures and integrity
are maintained. Operational requirements should include
alarms, automatic down-hole shut-off systems, and
procedures for rapid response in case of a shut-off.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Citations for well construction: Class VI Rule 40 CFR
Sec. 146.86 (a); ISO 27914: 2017 Clause 7; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 7;
Citations for well operation: Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.88; ISO
27914: 2017 Clause 8; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 6.
Require Comprehensive Testing and Monitoring Plans: Permit
applications should be supported by testing and monitoring
plans based on formal risk assessments. They should be
designed to detect potential unintended migration of
CO2 streams into unauthorized formations, the
sea, or the atmosphere through potential leakage pathways.
Monitoring should be risk-based and should adapt over time
since monitoring needs will change during different phases
of the project. Permitting staff should be equipped with
tools and knowledge necessary to independently review and
approve the monitoring plan and its amendments.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.90; ISO 27914: 2017 8.5 & Clause
9; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 6; EU Directive 2009/31/EC Article 13, Annex
II 2.
Require Emergency and Remedial Response Plans: Require an
emergency and remedial response plan that is keyed both to
deviations in project conformance and to monitoring network
indications of leakage.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.94; ISO 27914: 2017 4.3.4,
4.5.3, 6.6(g), 8.3.5; ISO 27916: 2019 6.1.1(g).
Require and Define Post-Injection Site Care (PISC): Post-
injection monitoring and modelling should continue as long
as necessary to confirm that CO2 plumes are
behaving as predicted and gather enough data to ensure
secure storage. This process should reinforce: (1)
understanding of the subsurface geologic storage system as
measured by agreement between model forecasts and
measurements of static and dynamic filed data, and (2)
ability of the system to contain CO2 while
remaining within acceptable, projected risk thresholds.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 40 CFR Sec. 146.93(a); ISO 27914: 2017
9.2.4; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 10; EU Directive 2009/31/EC Article 17.
Demonstrating and Verifying Secure Storage. Containment
assurance should include preventing leakage of
CO2 from the entire storage complex (both the
storage reservoir and the containment seals), thereby
preventing leakage to both the water column and the
atmosphere. There must also be assurance that formation
fluids capable of harming aquatic life do not enter the
water column. Demonstration of secure storage should
include both the absence of detectable leakage and
sufficient documentation to demonstrate with high
confidence that injected CO2 and formation
fluids will be safely contained long-term--it's EDF
perspective that this should be at least 1000 \26\ years.
Regulations should require review and verification of this
demonstration.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ IPCC (2005): IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and
L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 14. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf.
\27\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.84(c)(1) & (2); ISO 27914: 2017
6.5, 6.7.2.2, 9.1; ISO 27916: 2019 5.1, Clause 6, 10.4.
Plugging the Well: Prior to closure, wells should be
required to be plugged in accordance with an updated
approved plugging plan.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 40 CFR Sec. 146.92; ISO 27914: 2017
9.2.4; ISO 27916: 2019 7.2.
Closure: Site closure (the end of normal post-injection
monitoring) should be approved only after an operator
provides modelling backed by high-quality data that
demonstrates long-term containment of CO2 and
provides assurance against migration of CO2 or
formation fluids to the sea or atmosphere. Closure
authorizations should not relieve an operator from ongoing
responsibility for leaks or other harms caused by an
operator's failure to adhere to regulatory requirements or
approved plans regarding construction, operation, or
closure of the project.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 40 CFR Sec. 146.93 (b)(2); ISO 27914:
2017 Clause 10; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 10; EU Directive 2009/31/EC
Article 18; Texas 81(R) HB 1796 Sec. 382.508(a) (2009).
Financial Assurance: Financial assurance requirements must
be sufficient to cover updated estimated costs of emergency
and remedial response, corrective action, well plugging,
and post-injection site care and closure.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.85(a); EU Directive 2009/31/EC
Art. 9.9, Art. 19.
Assure Safety: Operations must be conducted in a safe
manner to protect against harm or damage to life (including
fish and other aquatic life), property, natural resources
of the OCS (including any mineral deposits both in areas
leased and not leased), the National security or defense,
or the marine, coastal, or human environment. This includes
protecting against potential harms resulting indirectly
from CO2 injection, such as the migration of
CO2 or subsurface brine to the sea floor that
would harm sea life or lead to deleterious changes in water
chemistry.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 30 CFR Sec. 250.400.
Transparency and Reporting: Ensure accountability for
geologic sequestration claims and U.S. carbon accounting
programs such as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
(GHGRP) by requiring public comment on completed
applications and proposed permits and public reporting of
both CO2 volumes sequestered and associated
documentation of their security. Further, it's EDF's belief
that a plain reading of the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program (GHGRP) Subpart RR \32\ makes clear that its
provisions apply to all wells that inject a CO2
stream for long-term containment in subsurface geologic
formations, including offshore facilities that are not
subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, reporting
requirements as well as provisions regarding the proposal
and review of Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV)
plans should be applicable to geologic sequestration
facilities authorized by DOI. EDF recommends that DOI and
EPA coordinate in order to foster efficient compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 40 CFR pt. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
While carbon capture and geologic storage is a critically important
building block in reducing emissions, it is not a silver-bullet climate
solution. It is a complex, highly technical, costly, and challenging
venture that if done correctly can help us address industrial
emissions. But geologic carbon sequestration cannot be done
successfully by just anyone or take place anywhere.
The Gulf of Mexico does potentially offer a unique geologic
opportunity and capacity to store large volumes of captured
CO2. Whether it can be done successfully--in a way that
respects coastal communities, protects marine resources, prevents leaks
and releases, and earns public trust as a valid solution remains to be
seen. Ensuring that the U.S. is committed to developing oversight
programs that address the principles for secure storage included here
would be a good start.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you very much, Ms. Saunders.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Milito for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIK MILITO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Milito. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify. My name is Erik Milito, and I am President of the
National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA).
At NOIA, we represent all segments of the offshore energy
industry. Our members include not just energy developers, but
also the businesses, large and small, that do the work of
building, supplying, and maintaining these projects. Hundreds
of companies are involved in the construction and operation of
offshore energy projects, providing high-paying jobs and
ensuring reliable supplies of affordable energy for Americans.
The same U.S. companies in the supply chain that have built
out the U.S. offshore oil and gas sector are already
participating in the build-out of the U.S. offshore wind sector
and will play a significant role in the emerging offshore
carbon sequestration sector. Geophysical companies, engineering
design firms, health and safety consultancies, offshore service
vessels, marine construction companies, drilling contractors,
and a myriad of other service and supply companies will be
integral to U.S. leadership in offshore CSS.
Our industry recognizes the risks of climate change and the
need for continued action. As innovators, our industry is
committed to contributing solutions to optimally balance
societal and environmental needs. Energy policy must
incorporate principles of innovation, efficiency, conservation,
mitigation, resiliency, and adaptation as part of a systematic
approach to addressing climate change. To do that, U.S. energy
policy should support the development of all forms of abundant,
reliable, and affordable domestic energy supplies, while
continuously driving down emissions.
U.S. energy policy should seek to achieve meaningful GHG
reductions across all sectors of the economy and balance
energy, environmental, economic, social, and national security
needs. When it comes to mitigating emissions, which
fundamentally must be the focus of climate policy, energy
policy should support the advancement of emission mitigation
technologies, and specifically carbon capture and storage.
The widespread deployment of CCS will be critical for
achieving the climate ambitions and goals that have been
established by a diverse group of stakeholders around the
world.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA),
reaching net-zero emissions will be virtually impossible
without CCS. The IEA also says CCS is the only group of
technologies that contributes both to directly reducing
emissions in critical economic sectors and to removing
CO2 to balance emissions that cannot be avoided, a
balance that is at the heart of net-zero emissions goals.
According to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, ``Some
emissions sources, like cement plants, can't be phased out
immediately, or they don't have non-fossil-fuel options even
available . . . that is where carbon capture and storage comes
into play.''
The U.S. Gulf of Mexico offshore region provides tremendous
advantages for an emerging U.S. CCS sector. The Gulf of Mexico
is characterized by vast geologic prospects for CO2
storage, extensive and established energy infrastructure along
the Gulf Coast and throughout the Outer Continental Shelf, a
proximity to industrial centers for capturing emissions, and an
accessible engineering and energy knowledge base and workforce.
The Gulf Coast region is distinctly situated to emerge as a
global hub for CCS. The Gulf Coast is home to the full supply
chain of energy companies with the engineering experience,
expertise, and vision to deploy projects with the scale and
efficiency necessary for success.
As with any capital-intensive industry, the U.S. CCS sector
requires certainty and predictability in the regulatory system.
Fortunately, Congress has provided Interior with authority to
regulate the transport and sequestration of carbon dioxide in
the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. And the Department is
currently working to develop the regulatory regime to provide
for the safe storage of CO2 in the offshore region.
We also urge Congress to expand the 45Q tax credit as a
means of incentivizing and supporting a durable offshore CCS
sector in the United States.
As stated by the National Petroleum Council, CCS is an
essential element in the portfolio of solutions needed to
change the emissions trajectory of the global energy system.
The U.S. Gulf of Mexico stands out as a premier region for
global leadership and success in the emerging CCS sector.
One thing I would like to add: an article by Columbia
University Climate School makes the point that, based on data
collected over the last several decades, there is a wide
consensus among experts, engineers, and geologists alike that
it is safe to permanently inject and store carbon dioxide.
Thank you, and I would be happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Milito follows:]
Prepared Statement of Erik Milito, President, National Ocean Industries
Association
``To reach the President's ambitious domestic climate goal of
net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, the United States will
likely have to capture, transport, and permanently sequester
significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) . . .
[It] is likely to be especially important for decarbonizing the
industrial sector, where high-temperature heat can be difficult
and expensive to electrify and where there are significant
emissions . . .''
-- The White House Council on Environmental Quality Report to
Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage. June, 2021
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUS-
Permitting-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
National Ocean Industries Association (``NOIA''). Now in our 50th year
as an organization, NOIA represents all segments of the offshore energy
industry. We are the voice and advocate for offshore oil and natural
gas, offshore wind, offshore carbon capture and storage, and offshore
mineral mining. Critically, our members include not just project
developers, but also the businesses large and small that do the work of
building, supplying, and maintaining infrastructure and projects in the
domestic marine environment. Our members are energy companies, and
their work is essential for providing the investment and jobs to
generate the technologies and energy necessary for the U.S. and global
economies to maintain a high quality of life and reduce poverty. We
represent countless thousands of blue-collar and white-collar employees
across the nation, stretching from New England to the Gulf Coast and to
the West Coast. Indeed, we have confirmed that our member companies not
only create jobs in the states of every member of this Committee, but
in every state in the Union.\2\ Together, we are working toward an
affordable, reliable, safe, and low carbon energy system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gulf-of-
Mexico-Oil-Gas-Project-Lifecycle.pdf.
Progress toward addressing the climate challenge will depend upon
increased innovation, conservation, efficiency, resiliency, mitigation,
and adaptation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an innovative
approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The wide-spread
deployment of CCS will be critical for achieving the climate change
ambitions and goals that have been established by a diverse group of
stakeholders around the world. CCS can serve as an important tool for
balancing environmental, economic, and energy needs. U.S. leadership in
CCS will help ensure the availability of abundant, reliable, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
affordable domestic energy, while continuously driving down emissions.
The Basics of CCS:
As its name suggests, CCS involves the capture of CO2
from either large point sources--including power generation or
industrial facilities--or directly from the atmosphere. The captured
CO2 is then compressed and transported to either be injected
into deep geological formations which permanently trap the
CO2 or is used in a range of applications. CCS uses a robust
supply chain and combines various technologies to effectively reduce
the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the air, thus
mitigating against warming effects and the impacts of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas,
and it is emitted through various industrial processes and the
transportation sector, among others. Industrial processes include
emissions from power plants, industrial furnaces and stoves, steel
blast furnaces, cement plants, and others.
The below infographic \3\ from the International Energy Agency does
an excellent job of showing the basics of the concept and the ways in
which carbon can be transported and ultimately used or stored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.iea.org/reports/about-ccus.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: An IEA Infographic Explaining The Basics of CCUS
The Challenge and Opportunity
While we continue to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
throughout our economy and the energy system, CCS will be key to
achieving our climate ambitions. As Secretary of Energy Jennifer
Granholm has discussed with regard to transitioning the economy toward
lower emissions, ``Some emissions sources, like cement plants, can't be
phased out immediately or they don't have non-fossil-fuel options even
available . . . that is where carbon capture and storage comes into
play.'' \4\ In other words, CCS will play a critical role in further
reducing carbon dioxide emissions from hard to decarbonize industries
and meeting the challenge of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://twitter.com/secgranholm/status/1423023737289408512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, as federal policymakers consider options for domestic
CCS, we applaud the increasing recognition that the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico's outer continental shelf offers tremendous advantages and can
accelerate the emerging U.S. CCS sector and strengthen American
leadership.
The Gulf aligns key drivers for success in CCS in the United
States. First, the Gulf Coast is home to the full supply chain of
energy companies with the engineering experience, expertise, and vision
to deploy CCS projects with the scale and efficiency necessary for
success. As the Greater Houston Partnership notes,\5\ the Houston area
alone is home to more than twenty energy-focused R&D centers, sixty-
seven energy technology companies, six hundred exploration and
production firms, 1,100 oilfield service companies, 180 pipeline
transportation firms, and the fourth largest concentration of
engineers. Likewise, neighboring Louisiana is also a key area for the
Gulf's energy economy. In 2020, the energy sector provided some $73
billion in state GDP and nearly a quarter of a million jobs--almost
one-ninth of employment in the state.\6\ Clearly, the region has a
massive supply chain and a deep bench of technical expertise upon which
to rely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.houston.org/why-houston/industries/energy.
\6\ https://www.lmoga.com/assets/uploads/documents/LMOGA-ICF-
Louisiana-Economic-Impact-Report-10.2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Gulf of Mexico is situated in close proximity to
substantial industrial centers along the coastline for capturing
emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.colliers.com/en/news/houston/petrochemical-and-
plastics-industry-2019-houston-economic-outlook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Gulf is characterized by vast geologic prospects for
CO2 storage. As the National Petroleum Council reported,
``One of the largest opportunities for saline formation storage in the
United States can be found in federal waters, particularly in the Gulf
of Mexico.'' \8\ In fact, estimates have pointed to storage capacity
along the Gulf Coast large enough for 500 billion metric tons of
CO2, which would equal about 130 years of industrial and
power generation emissions in the U.S. as of 2018.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of
Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage, The National Petroleum Council,
December 2019, p. 27.
\9\ https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/
2022/0120_Industry-support-for-large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage-
gains-momentum-in-Houston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, an extensive and established energy infrastructure along
the Gulf Coast and throughout the outer continental shelf will enable
logistical efficiencies for transporting CO2 from emissions
sources to storage locations.
Foreign Examples and Domestic Announcements Of Offshore CCS
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2: The North Sea's Sleipner Field
The technical and commercial feasibility of large offshore storage
projects is being proven on the global stage. For example, the Sleipner
project, led by NOIA member company Equinor, has been in operation
since 1996. It involves the capture of CO2 from industrial
sites onshore in Norway and then the transport and geologic storage in
saline aquifers off the coast, in volumes of approximately one million
tons per year.\10\,\11\ By comparison, the average American
car emits 4.6 tons of CO2 each year.\12\ There are other
examples of offshore geologic storage as well, such as Equinor's second
project--Snohvit--in the far-north of Norway, Chevron's Gorgon project
in Australia, a project in Brazil's Santos Basin operated by Petrobras,
and another in the South China Sea operated by CNOOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
Global-Status-of-CCS-2021-Global-CCS-Institute-1121.pdf.
\11\ https://www.equinor.com/en/news/2019-06-12-sleipner-co2-
storage-data.html.
\12\ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-
typical-passenger-vehicle#:: text=typical%20passenger%20vehicle%3F-
,A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits%20 about%204.6%20metric%20
tons%20of,8%2C887%20grams%20of%20CO2.s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects with engineering transferability to the Gulf of Mexico are
also underway. With operations beginning in 2024, Northern Lights is a
new CCS project under construction that will initially store up to 1.5
million tonnes of CO2 per year with the goal to achieve five
million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2027. The Northern Lights
project is part of a larger carbon capture and storage initiative that
will capture CO2 from industrial sources within Norway, ship
liquid CO2 from capture sites to an onshore terminal on the
coast, and then transport the CO2 by pipeline to an offshore
storage site below the North Sea in water depths of more than 300
meters and total depth to injection of 2,500 to 3,000 meters. In the
U.S., the Gulf of Mexico is well suited for the development of projects
like Northern Lights.
Fortunately, there have been recent decisions and announcements
related to the emergence of a domestic CCS industry in the Gulf of
Mexico. Talos Energy, a NOIA member company, has moved ahead with a
joint venture called Bayou Bend CCS LLC, which has formally executed a
lease from the State of Texas' General Land Office as part of an effort
to undertake CCS projects off the coast of Texas in state waters near
the industrial corridor around Beaumont and Port Arthur.\13\ The lease
covers some 40,000 acres and encompasses a formation which has the
potential to store as much as 275 million metric tons of
CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/us-gulf-of-
mexico/article/14241614/talos-energy-announces-formal-execution-of-
carbon-capture-lease-site.
Further, fourteen companies have joined forces to establish Houston
as a hub for large scale carbon capture and storage.\14\ The group is
forming a public-private partnership which could invest $100 billion to
capture tens of millions of tons of CO2 near the Houston
ship-channel.\15\ According to the consortium:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://houstonccs.com/.
\15\ https://cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/
exxonmobil-unveils-vision-for-100billion-carbon-capture-hub.html.
With the appropriate government, industry and community
backing, we believe we could help safely capture and store
about 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year from the
area's petrochemical, manufacturing and power generation
facilities by 2030, then double that to remove 100 million
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
metric tons a year by 2040.
We believe we could create tens of thousands of new jobs and
protect existing ones that are important to Houston's economy
while promoting long-term economic growth in Southeast Texas
and beyond. We also believe carbon capture and storage could
position Houston as a leader in future lower-carbon businesses
like hydrogen, and help put the city well on its way to
reaching its goal of being carbon-neutral by 2050.
The members of the group include Air Liquide, BASF, Calpine,
Chevron, Dow, ExxonMobil, Ineos, Linde, LyondellBasell, Marathon
Petroleum, NRG, Phillips 66, Shell, and Valero.
These are just examples, and there are countless companies with a
history in the Gulf of Mexico exploring opportunities for offshore CCS.
NOIA's membership alone includes dozens of companies throughout the
supply chain with established experience or interest in participating
in the build-out of the U.S. CCS sector.
Policy Action Necessary for Offshore CCS
As with any capital-intensive industry, the U.S. CCS sector
requires certainty and predictability in the regulatory system, both at
the state and federal level. Improvements must be made in U.S. laws and
regulations to foster growth and enable success in U.S. CCS.
On January 12, 2022, NOIA released its Offshore CCUS Policy Paper,
and this document included our public policy recommendations. This
document is provided for your reference. The top priorities include:
1. Legislation to expand the 45Q tax credit, with direct pay option;
2. BOEM regulations for reasonable and predictable access to OCS
geologic storage through leasing, permitting and approvals;
3. BSEE regulations for safety and environmental oversight of OCS
transportation and sequestration;
4. Clear regulatory requirements for secure geologic storage in the
OCS for purposes of qualifying for 45Q;
5. Prompt and thorough NEPA reviews for OCS storage program,
leasing, projects, and infrastructure;
6. Consideration of related tax credits, such as 45X on hydrogen,
and their interplay with 45Q; and
Fortunately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021
(P.L. 117-58) included Sec. 40307, explicitly authorizing the
Department to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the outer
continental shelf for the purposes of long-term storage. It also
directed the Secretary to issue regulations to that effect within one
year of enactment. NOIA understands that Interior is in the process of
developing the regulatory framework for offshore sequestration as
directed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It will be
important for Congress to ensure adequate funding for Interior to
fulfill its responsibilities for leasing and regulating the activity.
There is also a need for a stable tax credit environment,
particularly in the early years. The 45Q tax credit has been vital in
driving domestic onshore CCS, and it should be extended and expanded to
ensure a runway toward a viable and durable offshore CCS program.
Safety and Environmental Protection
America's offshore energy industry, including the carbon capture
and storage sector, is characterized by the continued advancement of
technology and systems integrity, the application of extensive industry
technical standards, and a robust regulatory regime. The industry
continues to develop and improve upon technologies designed to ensure
that a safety or environmental incident never occurs, and this includes
everything from the materials used in offshore operations, the
development of software and control systems to manage operations, the
development, production, and deployment of modern vessels, drill ships,
and facilities to drill wells and sequester carbon dioxide in the
offshore environment, and the design and manufacture of monitoring
equipment, subsea safety valves, and other safety equipment.
Furthermore, the vast experience of the oil and gas industry
throughout the world, and specifically in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, in
the field of health, safety, and environmental will enable the U.S.
government and industry to move forward, at the outset, with a strong
foundation for safe and environmentally responsible offshore carbon
capture and storage. As discussed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management in its 2018 OCS Study, ``Since at least 2005, it has been
recognized that storage of CO2 in the offshore sub-seabed
geological formations will use many of the same technologies developed
by the oil and gas (O&G) industry.'' The industry's experience in risk
assessments, project planning and execution, monitoring, mitigation,
inspections, and response are transferable and will be applied in the
offshore carbon and storage setting. In fact, the industry already has
experience in developing and applying these practices in offshore
carbon capture and storage projects throughout the world.
The United States, through its established regulatory oversight
authorities within the Department of the Interior and other agencies
within the federal family, is well positioned to develop a strong
regulatory regime for leasing, permitting, oversight, and enforcement
for carbon sequestration throughout the U.S. outer continental shelf.
As discussed above, the success of a U.S. offshore carbon capture and
storage sector will be contingent upon clear and predictable
regulations that enable investment and protect the health and safety of
workers, the public, and the environment. Interior has decades of
experience in regulating offshore oil and gas operations and this
established system of rules, along with institutional knowledge and
practical application of engineering principles, is--in many respects--
transferable to the development and execution of operational and
regulatory requirements for offshore carbon capture and storage. As
directed by Congress, Interior has begun the process for developing the
regulations, and the industry remains committed to working with
Interior and the entire federal family to establish a solid regulatory
framework. Congress also should facilitate the necessary authorizations
and funding for Interior to capably manage and oversee the safety and
environmental requirements for offshore sequestration.
The combination of an experienced industry and an established
regulator puts the United States in a unique position for confidently
and effectively managing and overseeing safe and environmentally
responsible carbon capture and storage in the U.S. outer continental
shelf.
Continued Innovation and Development of Clean Energy Technologies
The Gulf of Mexico is a recognized energy center, with a vast
ecosystem of companies and a workforce dedicated to developing all
forms of abundant, reliable, and affordable energy, while continuously
decreasing emissions. The offshore energy industry is uniquely situated
to deploy energy projects at the scale and sophistication necessary to
help lead the world in developing low carbon solutions. Many
engineering projects and technologies can be integrated to provide a
pathway to low carbon energy. This includes CCS and hydrogen. According
to the International Energy Agency:
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies
offer an important opportunity to achieve deep carbon dioxide
emissions reductions in key industrial processes and in the use
of fossil fuels in the power sector. CCUS can also enable new
clean energy pathways, including low-carbon hydrogen
production, while providing a foundation for many carbon
dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.
Policy makers should recognize the homegrown expertise and the vast
infrastructure throughout the Gulf of Mexico as we seek to secure the
U.S. as a leader in global decarbonization efforts.
Conclusion
``CCUS is an essential element in the portfolio of solutions
needed to change the emissions trajectory of the global energy
system. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that
the costs for achieving atmospheric CO2 levels
consistent with holding the average global temperature to 2
degrees Celsius--referred to as a ``2 degree Celsius world''--
will be more than twice as expensive without CCUS.'' \16\----
The National Petroleum Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment
of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage, The National Petroleum Council,
December 2019, p. 12.
We have an opportunity to set the stage for a 21st century in which
carbon is responsibly captured and transported for long-term geologic
storage or beneficial use. The offshore, and particularly the Gulf of
Mexico, present one of the most advantageous opportunities in the
United States and the world. The success of this nascent industry will
be closely connected to the development and implementation of clear and
predictable leasing, permitting, and regulations, along careful
coordination among federal, state, and local authorities. NOIA and its
members stand ready to work with policy makers to establish this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
important industry.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Milito.
I want to thank all the panelists for their testimony. I
think we now have a wide range of opinions on both the safety
and the effectiveness of carbon capture and storage, although
today we are talking more about the storage part.
I want to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a
5-minute limit on questions.
The Chair will now recognize Members for any questions they
may wish to ask the witnesses.
I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
My first question is to Dr. Tip Meckel.
Dr. Meckel, according to the Interior Department, most Gulf
of Mexico storage potential is found in either depleted oil and
gas reservoirs or saline aquifers. What is the difference
between these two, and does one formation make a better storage
location than the other?
And the second part of that question is, should the
Interior Department consider slightly different rules and
regulations for each type of formation, or would a one-size-
fits-all approach work in this case?
Dr. Meckel. Thank you for your question. The geology
beneath depleted oil and gas reservoirs and the geology that is
in a saline formation, or one that is filled with salt water,
can be very similar. The geology doesn't care if it is full of
saline water or oil and gas. I would say that each of those
sites requires site-specific characterization to allow for safe
and effective storage.
In a depleted oil and gas setting, what we are really
talking about is an oil field or a gas field that has reached
its productive end of life. That would be injecting
CO2 back into a depleted reservoir. So, to be clear,
this isn't injecting CO2 into currently productive
reservoirs. Those depleted reservoirs do have a demonstrable
geologic seal for retaining buoyant fluids in the subsurface,
which is a huge advantage for understanding the ability to
retain CO2.
You do also have a lot of production experience, which can
help you understand how fluids are moving in that subsurface
geology in the past and, therefore, how they will likely move
in the future.
Furthermore, there is some existing infrastructure there
that might be leveraged to develop projects more effectively.
And the one issue with the depleted oil and gas fields is
they tend to have quite a number of legacy wells. And legacy
wells can be a weak point in the retention system.
On the saline aquifer side, this is a much, much larger
proportion of the subsurface. Consider that oil and gas is only
accumulated in a percent or less of the available subsurface.
So, the vast majority of our storage potential is actually in
saline reservoirs. They do have few or no legacy wells in their
background, so they present less of a well risk.
They do have an untested seal in some regards, or retention
interval. So, that may be one of the liabilities of developing
a saline storage project that would require additional
attention.
You asked if the rules should be the same, and I would
agree that, overall, there doesn't need to be much of a
distinction between these two. But they should perhaps have
different emphases on these different risks that each presents,
legacy well versus retention in a seal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Meckel.
Ms. Saunders, onshore carbon storage has been happening for
years in the United States. How should the Interior Department
apply what we have learned from onshore carbon storage to
offshore carbon storage in the Gulf of Mexico when writing
these new regulations?
Ms. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman. As an initial matter, I
think I would say that it is absolutely in Interior's best
interest to consult heavily with experts like those at the
Department of Energy that have funded and led leading research
on carbon storage for many years now through programs like
Carbon Safe, and, of course, experts at EPA, who developed and
now have the experience of implementing a fully parallel
program through Class VI onshore.
There is not necessarily a need to fully reinvent the wheel
here. Yes, adaptations are definitely going to be necessary for
the unique conditions of the offshore environment. And there
have also been important lessons learned in the process with
Class VI. But I would hope and expect to see a rule from
Interior that really closely parallels the protections that
were developed onshore, and perhaps expands them in light of
the unique circumstances and perhaps the scale of operations in
the Gulf.
And I would also note that Interior can learn from
international references on this point, as well, particularly
those that have been utilized in active offshore projects like
the EU's directive on carbon storage and the international
standards out of ISO. Both of those are applicable in the
offshore context and could provide useful information. They are
also cited in the principles in my testimony.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I see I have run out of time. I
am hoping that we will have a second round, or maybe even more,
since many Members are not here.
I now turn to Representative Stauber for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Milito, great to see you. Thanks again for agreeing to
be our witness.
As discussed in my opening statement, the 5-year leasing
plan is set to expire on June 30, just 64 days from now. The
clock is ticking. What could the impact on future investments
in offshore CCUS be without a 5-year plan in place?
Mr. Milito. That could be devastating. We have recently put
out our own study that shows that if we do not have a leasing
program in place, it could result in the average loss of
500,000 barrels a day through 2040. And if you think about the
amount we were importing from Russia, it was about 500,000
barrels a day. So, if we don't produce it here in the United
States, we have to get it from somewhere else. We will be
looking at an average loss of 50,000 jobs.
And we have had our member companies, service companies who
have facilities and operations along the Gulf Coast at several
ports. They are now having to talk about whether or not to move
those investments to other parts of the world. So, it is
happening right now. It is having an impact, and it is going to
really hurt our everyday Americans because the price at the
pump is related to supplies, and supply is not keeping up with
demand. And one way to increase supplies is through production
of U.S. oil and gas.
Mr. Stauber. Should no offshore lease sales be held, what
happens to potential acreage for CCUS operations?
Mr. Milito. That is a good question. The general
understanding is that most of the CCS opportunities in the
Outer Continental Shelf will be on the shelf in the shallower
water. And the production in the Gulf of Mexico right now, 92
percent or more is coming from deep water. So, either way, you
are likely going to have significant opportunities for carbon
capture and storage projects in the Gulf of Mexico.
What could be a negative impact, though, is if we start to
lose the talent and expertise, and they start to move to other
parts of the world, because we need that workforce, we need
that engineering expertise to be able to move forward, design,
and implement those projects here in the United States, rather
than lose that knowledge to other parts of the world.
Mr. Stauber. And by your estimates, what is the potential
for American job creation in the Gulf, if we were to scale up
CCUS?
Mr. Milito. We don't have any studies that have modeled the
job impacts of that. We do have 370,000 jobs supported by the
Gulf of Mexico oil and gas sector today. That is not just along
the Gulf Coast. Every state in the country has companies and
jobs that are supported by the Gulf of Mexico. As I said, the
majority are along the Gulf Coast. Those are the types of jobs
that would feed into the carbon capture and storage sector in
the Gulf of Mexico.
So, it would be additive. Their high-paying jobs are
generally paying 30 percent or more than the average wages
across the country. A lot of blue collar jobs, and our
membership, we have minority-owned companies, Native American-
owned companies, companies led by women, and those are the
types of companies that will play a role in the CCS build-out.
Mr. Stauber. And in your testimony, you outlined the vast
oil and gas operations and other long-standing industrial and
commercial activities that occur in the Gulf of Mexico.
While the development of CCUS is promising, we need to
consider ways to ensure multiple use of submerged lands in the
OCS. We want it to continue.
How can we be sure that all uses of submerged lands are
equally valued as BOEM considers regulations in the carbon
capture sector?
Mr. Milito. That is a great question and a great point. We
have a lot of opportunities to do a lot of different things in
the Gulf of Mexico.
We had our first approval for alternative use of an
offshore facility recently for aquaculture. We know that
hydrogen can be used in conjunction with CCS. We want to make
sure that we can pursue that. We have to make sure we are
continuing to pursue oil and gas opportunities, because it is a
transition. We are talking about 2040, 2050. We are not talking
about the transition to 2024. So, we have to make sure we are
taking advantage of those opportunities. That can be done
through the Federal agencies, the Federal family, to make sure
that when we are doing environmental impact statements, we are
minimizing conflicts.
But the Gulf of Mexico has a long history of compatible
use. We have commercial and recreational fishing there. We have
Rigs to Reefs. If you go around these facilities, these are
ecosystems that are flourishing and that are now home to red
snapper that wasn't there before. We have tourism, we have
Department of Defense, and we have oil and gas and, hopefully,
soon going to have wind. So, it all can work together, it is
just a need to manage it from a multiple-use perspective, and
do that through the NEPA process.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I just have one last
question to Dr. Meckel.
You had mentioned the pipes that are already on the ocean
floor. Is that a viable use for transmission of CCUS?
Dr. Meckel. So, if I understand your question correctly,
you are thinking about the existing pipelines on the sea floor.
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Dr. Meckel. Some of those are idle. Many of them are still
moving fluids. The ones that are idle are up for consideration
for repurposing for CO2 transport. We do have
examples of converting natural gas lines onshore into CCS
lines. That was done in Mississippi. So, there is some
consideration for utilizing that infrastructure.
If it has been abandoned, it is probably unlikely that they
will be re-utilizable. But the ones that are idle currently--
and there are many--there is a huge opportunity to repurpose
those going forward.
Mr. Stauber. And then one last question. I know I am over
time, Mr. Chair, just indulge me for a moment.
One of the questions that I have is about multiple use.
Could you envision where there would be a carbon capture? Let's
say there is an abandoned well, for example, on the ocean
floor. You are putting the carbon in. Can you envision a law or
a rule that would then say you couldn't drill for oil within a
certain distance from that? In your professional conversations,
is that part of it?
Dr. Meckel. It is part of the conversation. But actually,
what we are seeing in some of the state level considerations is
that CCS is not developed at the expense of traditional oil and
gas exploration. So, there are some considerations about the
ability to drill through an existing CCS project to reach
deeper hydrocarbons that may yet be undiscovered.
But in most cases, they are compatible activities. Again,
they just need to be managed correctly in terms of their
proximity.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
Herrell for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Herrell. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for having this hearing, and for all of our witnesses being
here in person, I really appreciate that. And the timeliness of
this hearing is amazing.
I mean, the carbon storage, it is important. It is an
important issue, certainly important in southern New Mexico,
where I am from. Obviously, we don't have any of the offshore
drilling where I come from, but the companies that I represent
are, obviously, looking at new technologies not only to store
carbon, but to use it in such things as enhanced oil recovery.
But the biggest issue and hurdle that we have is the
cumbersome permitting process by the Federal agencies. This is
the biggest impediment we have, because now we are seeing wait
times of up to 450 days to receive our Federal permits. And,
obviously, we can all understand how that would prohibit
business as usual, if you will.
I do have a question for Mr. Milito--and I hope I am saying
that right.
Can you give the Committee a glimpse at what your members
are experiencing? I mean, what are some of the wait times for
offshore operators and the experiences that they are having in
terms of getting their permits approved?
And how do you think that will translate to permitting
practices for offshore carbon storage?
Mr. Milito. Yes. Generally, applications for permits to
drill have continued to get processed and approved.
One area where there has been a huge backlog is in
geophysical permitting, and that is kind of driven by the
approvals that come out of the Department of Commerce through
National Marine Fisheries Service. So, for companies to be able
to pursue offshore oil and gas projects, they need to run the
geophysical surveys to really understand the geology and the
rock to make that happen. And that allows them to actually
shrink the environmental footprint, because they are better to
target the prospects, because these technologies are highly
advanced.
I mean, you could really pinpoint where you want to target
for producing oil and gas. Those same technologies will
generally be required to be used for carbon capture and
storage. So, we need to make sure that we are streamlining the
ability to get permits to run geophysical surveys.
The other area is in leasing. There hasn't been a lease
sale that has gone through finalization and issuance of the
leases since late 2020. And as we have recognized and
understand, in order to produce any kind of energy and to move
forward with any type of energy project like CCS, you need
acreage. To get acreage, you need leases. If you don't have
lease sales, you can't do the activity, you can't produce
energy, or you can't store carbon capture and storage. So, they
do have some parallels, and we are highly concerned about the
inability to get leases in the offshore.
Some of that production can come on-line rather quickly. If
you have a lease that you would like to secure and it is close
to an existing facility, you can bring that production on-line,
sometimes within 12 months, which would help us in a situation
like we are in today with high prices and the geopolitics of
the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So, there are concerns.
I am confident that Interior is going to move forward and
put together CCS regulations. They are working on it. We have
had some engagement with them to let them have the opportunity
to hear from our experts. But there are Federal laws and
regulations in place that could hold things up.
Ms. Herrell. OK, that is great. And you actually already
answered the next question I was going to ask. It is kind of
like did you have my notes? Because actually, I was going to
ask how the lack of Federal lease sales also plays such an
important role, and you just touched on that.
In New Mexico--obviously, again, not any of the offshore--
but just to give an example of the slowdown or the kind of the
process, in New Mexico, we have a 95 rig count. In Texas, where
the land is largely private versus Federal lands, there are
249.
So, again, I just think the technologies could
revolutionize the energy industry as a whole, and benefit the
environment. I think it is timely, because many of our
Committee hearings stem from environmental justice and what we
can do to protect the environment. And certainly this is proof
that technologies are moving forward to protect not only the
industry, but the people that live in and around those
industries and the company assets.
So, with that, those are all of my questions. Mr. Chairman,
I yield back. Thank you for this hearing.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Are there any Members who have not had their 5 minutes, or
seek recognition to ask questions?
Not hearing any, I would like to have a second round to
give us some more time, if that is OK with the other Members.
Well, I am going to do it anyway. I am going to begin and
recognize myself.
Mr. Muffett, it is critical to monitor the carbon dioxide
injected into the earth to verify it doesn't leak back into the
atmosphere or migrate into areas where it might cause damage.
Tell me what you think about the Gulf of Mexico. Why don't the
unique challenges that we are going to find there to monitoring
and verifying that carbon dioxide injected into the deep--that
monitoring will be able to successfully understand what is
happening to the carbon dioxide?
And how should the Interior plan for such challenges about
the damage that carbon dioxide might cause in their
regulations?
Mr. Muffett. I think that there are a number of challenges
to consider.
Analysis of experience with offshore natural gas pipelines
has demonstrated that offshore pipelines pose a higher risk of
failure than onshore pipelines, and the increased corrosion
risk from CO2 increased those risks of failure, even
beyond the challenges of managing pressure in subsea storage.
With respect to managing and monitoring pressure, and
monitoring leakage in subsea storage facilities in subsea
reservoirs, I think the challenge is that the technologies are
not yet developed. There are experimental measures. You read
the scientific papers, and there are pilot projects that are in
testing. But the means of doing this are not well understood.
And it is important to recognize that our experience with
abandoned oil and gas wells proves that point.
A document released by the Bureau of Ocean and Energy
Management, just in 2021, covering the 2022 to 2023 research
year, focuses on the Bureau's need to develop methodologies to
determine whether existing abandoned oil and gas wells are
leaking, because the Bureau does not know. And if the Bureau
cannot tell you whether existing abandoned oil and gas wells
are leaking, given the existing experience with those wells, I
think the potential for monitoring leakage and monitoring
pressure from CO2 storage is even more complex and
even more limited.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Ms. Saunders, can you speak on the importance of involving
the public, especially that live in the Gulf Coast region, in
the Interior Department's carbon storage rulemaking in any
future CCS activities and projects in the Gulf of Mexico?
Ms. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman. I would be happy to.
I don't think that the importance of public involvement can
really be overstated here. Our normal kind of rulemaking notice
and comment processes just simply aren't going to be enough in
this instance, given the weight of the decision at hand. So,
proactive outreach is going to be very important.
EDF recently participated in a dialogue involving numerous
interested environmental NGO stakeholders with Interior, and I
also understand from that conversation that they are actively
working to conduct similar outreach to environmental justice
leaders and organizations, particularly those that are
representing communities on the Gulf Coast.
From source to sink, we are talking about a lot of
infrastructure, a lot of lives, a lot of land, a lot of
ecosystems that might be touched and otherwise impacted by
these operations. So, everyone in that chain, and in particular
the communities that have already been disproportionately
impacted and burdened by industrial development, really need a
chance not only to be heard, but to be proactively involved in
decisions that will impact them down the line.
I also believe, actually, that in guidance with EPA's Class
VI program, there are numerous instances where public
engagement and communication should occur both formally and
informally in the actual individual project and permit process.
So, I would hope that Interior would also look at those
procedures and adopt something similar, as well.
Dr. Lowenthal. All right. I have one more question, and I
am going to ask Mr. Muffett.
Does the track record of carbon capture projects in the
United States make you optimistic or pessimistic that capturing
carbon and storing it in the Gulf of Mexico will be an
economical way to reduce carbon emissions?
Mr. Muffett. It is important to recognize that CCS is not a
new technology. The oil industry invented and patented
technologies to remove carbon from waste streams in the 1950s
and 1960s. By 1980, ExxonMobil was acknowledging that it had
the technology to remove carbon from waste streams, but that it
was simply too expensive, and the industry didn't want to do
it. Exxon said in an internal document, ``We could remove 50
percent of the emissions from waste streams, but doing so would
double the cost of the underlying industry.''
So, the challenge for CCS is not one of technology on the
capture side. The challenge has always been one of economics.
And this has been demonstrated over and over again with CCS
projects. The history of CCS projects in the United States and
worldwide is a history where industry and proponents over-
promise emission reductions and systematically under-deliver.
Chevron's Gorgon project in Australia is a case in point.
It is one of the largest CCS projects in the world, and Chevron
is currently having to repay massive fines to the Australian
Government because it failed to capture remotely what it had
committed to capture. And we have seen this happen again and
again, and I think this is really important.
When rules were proposed----
Dr. Lowenthal. Can you make it brief. We are over in time.
Mr. Muffett. Oh, OK, thank you.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for another 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Milito, can you briefly explain the purpose of seismic
surveying, and why it is needed to properly site locations for
CCS or CCUS operations?
And what would happen if seismic permits weren't granted in
a timely fashion?
Mr. Milito. Well, seismic surveys are fundamentally
scientific research. They are used to understand the geology,
both onshore and offshore. They are used for a multitude of
purposes for understanding the faults, the potential for
earthquakes, the potential for any kind of activity within the
geology itself. Seismic surveys are used for locating sand for
beach renourishment. They are used for siting wind turbines. It
is just fundamentally a scientific research activity.
But what it does, it allows you to obtain a very vivid
image of the geology underneath the sea floor, so you can
understand where and how best to either develop energy
resources or to find the best sites for injecting carbon
dioxide into a reservoir. It is really about delineating the
reservoir and understanding which are the best locations for
storing carbon dioxide when it comes to CCS.
Mr. Stauber. Currently, is the Biden administration
processing seismic permits in a timely and predictable fashion?
Mr. Milito. No, and this has gone back several years. We
have been looking for regulations to be in place. The
regulations were finally put into place. And they are working
contrary to the needs of Americans and for offshore energy
development, because the permits are piling up. It relates to
the incidental take authorizations, and companies are finding
themselves in a real bind to be able to get these seismic
permits, these geophysical permits, so they can do the
geological work to best move forward with projects.
Mr. Stauber. And then one of the long-term questions is
about liability. Who is responsible for monitoring if carbon is
stored forever?
Mr. Milito. Well, the operator of the project is going to
have the responsibility to monitor during the life of the
project.
The question becomes about when you have a lease, whether
it is wind, or oil and gas, or carbon capture and storage, at
some point you are done using it. It goes back to the
government. Leases have a fixed term, and they go back.
Production ends, the lease goes back. So, when it comes to
carbon capture and storage, this is still an open question.
The National Petroleum Council recommended that the
government, through DOE, put together a forum to really have a
discussion to consider all the issues around liability. And
that is one approach we think should need to be taken, because
companies aren't going to want to invest when they don't have
the certainty around what the liability will be.
In Europe, at some point the liability transfers back to
the government. That is one model. It is after you are able to
demonstrate, after a certain number of years, that you have
secured geologic storage permanently in place. So, different
ways of looking at it, but it is something that must be sorted
out.
Mr. Stauber. Do any panelists have any ideas or
recommendations to that question on how long should carbon
storage lease terms be?
Doctor?
Dr. Meckel. Yes, I have some opinions on that. Typically,
if you are going to invest in a project of this scale, you are
going to want the project to be active for anywhere from 15 to
30 years. So, a lease agreement needs to have that much
flexibility.
Mr. Stauber. And who should be responsible for the carbon
storage after a certain period of time, in your opinion?
Dr. Meckel. Well, under the current regulation in the
United States onshore, it is under UIC Class VI well
regulations, and you are required to monitor to demonstrate
containment in order to be in compliance with your well permit.
That, in turn, allows you to apply for the 45Q tax credit. So,
the operator will always have the incentive to monitor the
project, because it is tied directly to the economics of the
project.
I agree with the former statement that understanding when
that project ends and the timeline into transferring the
liability back to a State or Federal Government is yet to be
defined. But at least in the case of the state of Texas, in the
state offshore, they are considering taking back over the
CO2 ownership at a given time. It is just not yet
defined.
Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you.
Ms. Saunders. I could make some contributions, as well,
Representative. I apologize, it is hard to jump in virtually.
Mr. Stauber. Yes. Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms. Saunders. I did want to kind of engage that this is an
issue that EDF has been actively thinking about.
So, the traditional regulatory legal principles around
liability, like those that apply in oil field operations, EPA
has also indicated apply in the Class VI context. And they are
designed to hold operators accountable when they fail to live
up to their responsibilities, encouraging them to do as good of
a job as possible.
And what we are concerned about is the potential for
liability transfer done too early in the process or without the
right characteristics to reopen it that might create a moral
hazard, or create a situation where operators lack an incentive
to decrease their exposure risk because they are not going to
face significant consequences if projects eventually fail or
have negative effects. For example, in the EU, there is a
transfer of liability provision, but that framework also gives
the authorities ability to reopen liability in the case of
deficient data, negligence, failure to exercise diligence, and
more.
So, I think an operator in Class VI EPA has also said, even
though a transfer might occur, the operator might still be
liable for regulatory non-compliance under certain
circumstances, even after site closure is approved. For
example, if they provided erroneous data to support approval,
or it is necessary to protect health if a leak threatens USDW
water.
I think there is some specificity here in terms of not
wanting to create liability relief that lessens the motivation
of operators to really do their due diligence in the name of
helping for investment. Because, as we have seen in Texas,
where the statute actually expressly provides that storage
operators keep their liability for their mistakes offshore, we
are still seeing projects and investment there, as well.
So, I think we have to be committed to the long game here
and seeking early liability relief. And speaking at the same
time to the safety and demonstrated safety of operations
doesn't help public trust here. I think there is a solution
that we need to find somewhere in the middle.
Mr. Stauber. I thank you, ma'am.
My time is up. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Before we conclude, I would like to ask each witness if
there was one question that you were not asked today, but would
have liked to have been asked by the Subcommittee, what is that
question, and what would your answer have been?
Let's start with Dr. Meckel. Is there any question we
should have asked, or you would have liked us to have asked
you?
Dr. Meckel. A question I am often asked by industrial
entities considering pursuing these projects is how do I know
that I can actually inject the CO2?
And the answer is, we have existing examples of injecting
billions of barrels of waste fluid into these similar geology
for decades. And it has led to almost no incidents. So, we know
today there are 1,500 wastewater injection wells in the Gulf
Coast that are injecting the equivalent of a gigaton of
CO2--if you were to convert that water into a
CO2 equivalent--a gigaton, 1,500 wells. We know that
those wells are capable of injecting a million tons a year
equivalent today. We expect wells to be able to do even more of
that.
So, we expect that the development of CCS to effectively
address emissions will develop on the order of thousands of
wells in the OCS that will be injecting gigatons of
CO2 by 2050. That is a significant reduction in the
U.S. emissions profile.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Ms. Saunders, I ask you the same question: What question
were you not asked today, but would have liked to have been
asked by the Subcommittee, and what would your answer have
been?
Ms. Saunders. Well, I have been fascinated and grateful to
participate in this hearing because it represents a wide swath
of perspectives on both the benefits and the most challenging
risks and potential downsides of CCS in the Gulf. And the
nuance here is exceptionally challenging.
So, at the moment, I want to share that the risk I am most
focused on is that Interior has maybe 6 or 7 more months left
to draft, propose, take comment, and finalize and complete a
regulatory framework for offshore carbon storage on the OCS. It
is absolutely imperative that those rules cut zero corners for
the sake of expediency, not only on principles to demonstrate
and secure storage of carbon, but also for many, many other
aspects of a regulatory program, such as consulting and working
with environmental justice communities and leaders on the Gulf
Coast.
So, I am just really pleased that you have chosen to focus
a hearing on this subject right now, because our current
reality is that American companies are rapidly lining up to
make decarbonization and net-zero commitments. Just this past
week, we saw companies like Google and Meta committing massive
sums of money to support ventures for carbon removal. All of
this carbon, whether it is industrial capture, carbon removal,
or otherwise has to go somewhere essentially permanently. And
many experts direct much of those volumes to geologic storage.
And it is likely that carbon storage in geologic formations
like those in the Gulf Coast may be part of meeting those
targets. But before we roll out the red carpet and allow this
practice at scale, we have to come to agreement on the
conditions that need to be met to ensure that it will be done
in a way that is not only safe, but can clearly demonstrate the
permanence of storage.
So, that is why I am here. That is what I wanted to share
my testimony about. And we desperately need more voices like
all of yours here today focusing on how important that
sequestration part is of this equation, and that we
comprehensively monitor, report, and verify that we ensure our
regulatory system holds carbon storage operations accountable
for not just the safety of their operations, but the validity
of their claims for sequestration. Otherwise, this whole
process really fails to provide that benefit.
Dr. Lowenthal. OK, thank you.
Mr. Muffett, can you answer what question you were not
asked today that you would have liked to have been asked, and
what would your answer have been?
Mr. Muffett. I think the question we should all be asking
is what conceivable rationale is there for investing untold
billions of dollars of public money in a technology that will
capture only a tiny fraction of emissions, even from industrial
sources, when the most direct route to addressing the climate
crisis is to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels?
We have the tools and technologies to do that right now.
And increasingly, those tools and technologies are cheaper than
fossil fuels.
And I would like to highlight that the fundamental lack of
economics is demonstrated by the fact that the industry says
they cannot do this without those massive public subsidies that
they are asking again here today for the government to
increase. And they are asking for further subsidies by asking
the government and the American public to waive the liabilities
that would result from potential accidents far into the future,
which is what matters when we are talking about injecting
CO2 into the ground and keeping it there for
decades, to centuries, to millennia. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Milito. Sir, I think you are on mute. I guess it is my
turn.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Milito. OK, thank you. I think one of the leading
questions here is, how do we put together a framework of
regulation for the safe, secure, and permanent geologic
storage?
I look at the EDF testimony from Ms. Saunders. I think it
really lines up in a very excellent way the components of
regulations that need to be put in place. We need to have a
risk-based approach for the full life cycle design of these
systems that looks at things like site characterization,
characterization of reservoirs, assessing leakage pathways,
constructing and operating wells, testing and monitoring
response, post-injection site care, and demonstrating and
verifying security. These are all elements that this industry
has great experience doing, and we want to have regulations
that put certainty around that to make sure it is done in that
way.
One other thing I would add is, when it comes to
monitoring, we have a long history of being able to monitor. If
you look at the Sleipner project, offshore Norway, it has been
around since 1996, over 25 years. It has captured over 20
million tons of carbon dioxide, and they have monitoring in
place there. The monitoring is off the shelf. These are
downhole instruments, gauges that allow companies to monitor
pressures and temperatures to know if there is an abnormality.
So, our industry can do it, we are ready to do it. And we,
as NOIA, are here to help and be a resource to Congress, to
this Committee.
We thank you for allowing us to appear, and we look forward
to further conversation on this key topic for addressing the
climate challenge.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for
their valuable testimony and Members for their questions.
This concludes our hearing. The members of the Committee
may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we
will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under Committee
Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must submit witness
questions within 3 business days following the hearing, and the
hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these
responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal
OCS Study
BOEM 2018-004
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Headquarters (Sterling, VA)
Best Management Practices for Offshore Transportation and Sub-Seabed
Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide
*****
Available at: https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/5663.pdf
------
Statement for the Record
Carbon Capture Coalition
The Carbon Capture Coalition appreciates the opportunity to submit
this statement for the record for the House of Representatives Natural
Resource Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
hearing on offshore carbon storage. Carbon management technologies are
essential tools to achieving the nation's midcentury climate goals,
while preserving and creating middle class jobs that pay family
sustaining wages, providing environmental and other benefits to
communities, and supporting regional economies across the country.
The Carbon Capture Coalition is a nonpartisan collaboration of more
than 100 companies, unions, conservation and environmental policy
organizations, dedicated to building federal policy support to enable
economywide commercial scale deployment of the full suite of carbon
management technologies, which includes carbon capture, removal,
transport, utilization, and storage. Widespread adoption of carbon
capture at existing industrial facilities, power plants and future
direct air capture facilities is critical to achieving net-zero
emissions to meet midcentury climate goals, strengthening and
decarbonizing domestic energy, industrial production and manufacturing,
and retaining and expanding a high-wage jobs base. Convened by the
Great Plains Institute, Coalition membership includes industry, energy,
and technology companies; energy and industrial labor unions; and
conservation, environmental, and clean energy policy organizations.
This statement outlines the safety and effectiveness of secure
geologic storage of captured carbon dioxide (CO2) and its
critical importance in realizing essential emissions reductions targets
by midcentury. Carbon capture, transport and storage technologies have
been proven at commercial scale in the United States for decades and
industry has more than 50 years' experience safely transporting and
permanently storing CO2. Increased interest in using
offshore resources in the U.S. among members of Congress and key
stakeholders to enable a clean energy economy, along with recent
federal investments in carbon management and industrial decarbonization
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, have provided a
very near-term opportunity to scale commercial carbon capture, direct
air capture and clean hydrogen projects, associated infrastructure, and
geologic storage in the offshore environment.
Commercial interest in carbon management technologies and projects
is growing rapidly, with nearly 90 publicly announced projects
throughout the United States. More than 70 percent of these announced
projects intend to store captured CO2 deep underground
safely and permanently in saline geologic formations. The potential for
saline geologic storage is enormous and represents a long-term,
scalable climate solution. While carbon capture and storage is only one
piece of the climate solution, estimates of domestic saline storage
capacity represent over 1,000 years' worth of U.S. CO2
emissions.
What remains clear is that large-scale carbon management must play
a central role in meeting midcentury global temperature targets,
including through carbon capture at industrial facilities and power
plants, and direct air capture facilities. In its' most recent WGIII
Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change report, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that carbon
capture, removal and storage technologies will account for up to 12
gigatons of CO2 captured and stored annually by midcentury--
further underscoring the urgent need to scale up carbon management
technologies to capture and store CO2 at scale by
midcentury. Additionally, of the seven pathways that IPCC uses to
reflect different decarbonization strategies, only one excludes
deployment of carbon capture and removal technologies. This same
scenario estimates that global energy demand will be cut in half over
the next 30 years, which is unrealistic and unachievable in world where
billions of people seek improved standards of living.
Safe and permanent injection and storage of CO2 in deep
geologic formations represent a well-understood and commercial practice
in the U.S. and worldwide. In the U.S., EPA regulates and permits
geologic storage projects using the Underground Injection Control
Programs' Class II and Class VI wells. Through these programs, EPA and
established state primacy programs maintain a robust system of
monitoring, reporting and verification to validate secure geologic
storage to claim the 45Q tax credit, the cornerstone policy enabling
the scale up of carbon management projects. Furthermore, 45Q is a
performance-based tax credit, meaning that projects must demonstrate
that the captured carbon oxide (CO2 or it's precursor, CO)
is permanently stored or utilized to receive the credit. No other
energy technology must prove carbon dioxide mitigation to receive a tax
credit--wind, solar and other technologies receive federal tax credits
based on production--regardless of total CO2 emissions
reduced.
While commercially practiced today, scaling up development and
permitting of secure geologic storage at gigaton scale is key to
getting industries on track to be able to reach net-zero emissions
targets and midcentury climate goals. Domestically, the Great Plains
Institute estimates that there is the potential to capture and store
more than 300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year
from existing industry and power sources by 2035. To date, over a
quarter billion tons of CO2 emissions have been successfully
stored globally in saline geologic formations. Commercial saline
storage began with the Sleipner Project in Norway in 1996, which has
stored approximately 1 million tons of CO2 annually captured
from natural gas processes and injected deep under the bed of the North
Sea. In the U.S., the industry is capturing and storing 22 million
metric tons of CO2 per year. At the Archer-Daniels-Midland
(ADM) in Decatur, IL annually stores approximately 1 million tons of
CO2 in captured from ethanol fermentation, in the first
active Class VI well.
With more than 60 publicly announced carbon management projects
declaring their intent to store CO2 through dedicated saline
storage, ensuring that EPA's Class VI permitting program, which
provides specific regulations for dedicated geologic storage of
CO2, has adequate resources to properly and expeditiously
permit projects is increasingly important. The anticipated increase in
project applications to the Class VI Well program highlights the
importance of federal and state efforts to provide key support for
project development to meet midcentury climate goals. According to the
Great Plains Institute, EPA has permitted two Class VI wells to date,
with well permit applications for an additional four wells as pending.
While it's true that the offshore environment presents unique
circumstances relative to the onshore environment, relevant federal
agencies should support the same rigor of monitoring, verification and
reporting for secure, long-term storage of CO2 when
promulgating rules governing the offshore environment. Additionally,
these same agencies should ensure the same level of transparency
through reporting, monitoring and verification and transparency
measures required by Subpart RR of the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program in the onshore environment. Ensuring transparency and
accountability mechanisms for the offshore storage environment are
integral to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the 45Q tax
credit.
Secure geologic storage is not only essential for reaching
midcentury climate targets, but in enabling domestic industries to
capture and manage their carbon emissions. In addition to playing a
central role in decarbonizing domestic industry, manufacturing and
energy, the deployment of carbon management technologies, coupled with
the necessary development of CO2 transport and storage
infrastructure, will help safeguard current high-paying jobs at
existing facilities, while creating tens of thousands of new jobs and
generating tens of billions in capital investment, according to
analysis conducted by the Rhodium Group. The deployment of carbon
capture, direct air capture, carbon utilization and associated
CO2 transport and storage projects provide some of the most
desirable clean energy, industrial and manufacturing jobs for American
workers, as they consistently pay above-average local wages that
support families and communities.
Federal policymakers have recently demonstrated their foresight and
recognition of the essential role that CO2 transport and
storage infrastructure must play in putting our nation on a path to
reaching net-zero emissions by midcentury with the enactment of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The bipartisan package
included foundational investments in the buildout of regional
CO2 transport and storage infrastructure with the complete
inclusion of the Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions (SCALE)
Act. Much like the development of other vital infrastructure systems,
the SCALE Act positions the federal government to partner with private
capital to invest in both regional and national CO2
transport and storage infrastructure networks.
The SCALE Act provisions enacted through the IIJA include funding
for geologic storage permitting at $25 million during FY22-26 and $50
million during FY22-26 for state permitting program grants. Effective
implementation of these modest but vital permitting resources could be
transformative. These resources can provide the adequate federal and
state permitting capacity required for a critical mass of carbon
management projects to move forward over the next decade.
Enabling deployment at scale would ensure that the far greater
federal investments in both the infrastructure bill and the 2018
bipartisan reform and expansion of the federal 45Q tax credit achieve
their full climate potential. However, while these incremental gains
remain important to realizing economies of scale, Congress now must
deliver the broad portfolio of federal policy support for carbon
management in forthcoming budget reconciliation legislation, including
direct pay and multi-year extension of the 45Q tax credit, increased
credit values for industry, power and direct air capture, and
dramatically reduced annual capture thresholds. Combined with the
investments made in the infrastructure law, these enhancements to the
45Q tax credit would result in an estimated 13-fold increase in carbon
management capacity and annual CO2 emissions reductions of
210-250 million metric tons by 2035 as well as creating hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the carbon capture and direct air capture
industries.
Conclusion
Carbon capture, removal, utilization, transport and storage
technologies are essential tools to decarbonize the hardest-to-abate
sectors, increase domestic energy production, protect and grow a high-
wage jobs base, and fulfil our climate obligations. The groundbreaking
provisions to scale deployment of associated CO2 transport
and storage infrastructure enacted as part of the bipartisan
infrastructure law are essential to placing America's energy,
industrial and manufacturing sectors on track to reach net-zero
emissions by 2050. At the same time, these will ensure the long-term
viability of vital industries that provide millions of existing high-
wage jobs, which represent the lifeblood of American workers, their
families and communities, and regional economies. Analyses by the
Rhodium Group reveals the potential for creating tens of thousands and
hundreds of thousands of jobs and generating hundreds of billions in
investment from carbon capture and direct air capture deployment,
respectively, if these technologies are deployed at levels needed to
meet net-zero targets.
The Carbon Capture Coalition appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the important topics of today's hearing and the Committee's support
in advancing federal policies to enable greater deployment of carbon
management technologies and infrastructure to meet midcentury climate
goals. We look forward to working with the Committee in a bipartisan
manner to participate in the rulemaking process for secure offshore
geologic storage of CO2.
Should you have any questions about anything outlined in this
statement, please contact Madelyn Morrison, External Affairs Manager.
______
CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE
April 28, 2022
Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chair
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Subcommittee Hearing: The Opportunities and Risks of Offshore
Carbon Storage in the Gulf of Mexico, Statement for the Record
of Clean Air Task Force, Inc.
Dear Chairman Lowenthal:
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) thanks you for holding today's Hearing
on the important question of permanent subseabed geologic storage of
industrial carbon dioxide in the Gulf of Mexico.
CATF is a global nonprofit organization working to safeguard
against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid
development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate-
protecting technologies, including carbon capture and permanent storage
and direct air capture and permanent storage technologies. CATF has
offices in Boston, Washington D.C., and Brussels, with staff working
virtually around the world. CATF's global carbon capture team consists
of technology and policy experts and lawyers with decades of experience
in carbon dioxide capture, transport, removal, and storage. The team's
expertise stems from the regular contact we maintain with carbon
capture project developers, investors, innovators, and regulators in
addition to policy advocates and academic modelers. CATF's carbon
capture team specializes in analyzing the effect of regulation and
policy options, to discern the most cost-effective means to scale up
carbon capture, transport, removal, and permanent storage technologies
to achieve mid-century decarbonization goals.
CATF recognizes the critical role of carbon capture and permanent
storage technologies in meeting mid-century decarbonization goals. IPCC
Working Group III assessed 97 pathways to keep global warming to 1.5+C
with limited or no overshoot and found an average of 665 gigatons (Gt)
of carbon capture and storage will be needed between now and 2100,
while emphasizing that carbon capture and storage is particularly vital
for reducing hard-to-abate industrial emissions (e.g., cement, steel,
and chemicals).\1\ Many of these hard-to-abate industrial sources are
located within the Gulf Coast region and have limited viable carbon
dioxide emission mitigation options outside of carbon capture and
storage. Injection of carbon dioxide deep below the seabed in areas
offshore of these regions, both beneath state waters and on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico represents a significant
and viable gigaton-scale resource for permanent storage of captured
carbon dioxide from industrial sources in the Gulf Coast region.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,
Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
(2022), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/.
\2\ P.S. Ringrose & T.A. Meckel, Maturing global CO2
storage resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS
emissions reductions, 9 Sci. Rep. 17944 (2019).
Geologic storage, both onshore and offshore, is a well-understood
and commercial practice in the U.S. and worldwide, with commercial
operations dating back to the 1970s. To-date, in the United States
alone, over 31 million metric tons (Mt) of CO2 emissions
have been safely and permanently stored in deep geologic formations
regulated under the EPA's Subpart RR.\3\ Commercial saline storage
began with the Sleipner Project in Norway in 1996, which has stored
approximately 1 Mt of captured CO2 annually for over 20
years deep in the subseabed of the North Sea.\4\ The Sleipner Project's
multi-decade record of large-scale, safe and permanent storage of
captured CO2 provides precedent that subseabed geologic
storage can be effectively and safely performed, provided that
appropriate site characterization, design, monitoring, reporting and
verification are undertaken. Additionally, the existence of naturally
occurring, large hydrocarbon accumulations in the Gulf of Mexico
provides evidence that this offshore region has appropriate subsurface
geology and conditions for retaining large volumes of fluids over
geologic time scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 98.440-98.449 (subpart RR).
\4\ Anne-Kari Furre et al., 20 Years of Monitoring CO2-
injection at Sleipner, 114 Energy Procedia 3916 (2017).
For permanent subseabed geologic storage to be implemented safely,
a strong regulatory framework must be established. When properly
characterized, deep [more than 1,000 ft below the seafloor] \5\
geologic reservoirs are ideal locations for permanent carbon dioxide
storage and can ensure that injected captured carbon dioxide will not
be released to the atmosphere. The operator must also demonstrate that
injection and post-injection activities are sufficient to avoid
releases, including through monitoring and reporting of amounts
injected, pressures, and other specific parameters that should be
included in regulatory requirements for this activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Dep't of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, OCS
Study BOEM 2018-004, Best Management Practices for Offshore
Transportation and Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Dec.
2017), https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/5663.pdf.
Existing rules under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Underground Injection Control program regulate geologic storage of
CO2 onshore and under the offshore seabed in state
jurisdictions. The EPA also regulates the air monitoring of onshore
geologic storage operations, under its Clean Air Act authority, to
ensure that there is no release to the atmosphere. These regulations
are based on the need for protections for underground sources of
drinking water (USDWs). While USDWs are not present in the OCS, the key
principles of EPA's UIC Class VI well regulations are otherwise still
largely suitable for regulating subseabed storage activities beyond
state jurisdiction in the OCS. Moreover, following the principles of
EPA's UIC Class VI program will be equally imperative to prevent
CO2 releases to the ocean water column and the ensuing harm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that could be caused to the ocean's flora and fauna.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to establish rules for deep subseabed
storage of carbon dioxide under the OCS by November 15, 2022. BOEM and
its sister agency the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE) are working now to develop a robust regulatory framework for
subseabed carbon dioxide storage. This effort will require close
coordination and collaboration between EPA and BOEM/BSEE to ensure that
any new rule adheres to existing key principles of EPA's UIC and Clean
Air Act programs governing onshore geologic storage activities. BOEM
and BSEE will also require financial support as they work to develop a
suite of robust technical subseabed storage rules in a short time
frame.
Sincerely,
Clean Air Task Force
[all]